Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Herts and Essex Water Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Durham County Transport Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Coventry Corporation Bill,

Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

FORTH CONSERVANCY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords] (by Order).

Considered (under Section 7 of Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899).

CLAUSE 87.—(For Protection of Caldwell and Company (Paper-makers), Limited.)

The following provisions shall have effect for the protection of Caldwell and Company (Papermakers), Limited, in respect of the lands at present owned by the said company in the burgh of Inverkeithing (which company and their successors in the said lands are hereinafter in this Section referred to as "the company"):—

Amendment made: Leave out the words "at present" ["lands at present owned by"], and insert instead thereof the words "which were prior to the application to the Secretary of Scotland for this Order."—[Mr. Munro.]

CLAUSE 88.—(For Protection Admiralty.)

(9) Notwithstanding anything in this Order to the contrary it shall be lawful for His Majesty or for any person or body in trust
for His Majesty or for any department of His Majesty's Government at any time and from time to time with consent of the Admiralty but without the consent of any other body or person to construct, alter or vary any permanent or temporary works for the public service or carry on any naval experiments or operations anywhere on the bed, soil, or foreshore of the river. The expression "works" in this Sub-section shall include moorings and other conveniences and appliances, the dredging of the river and the deposit within the river or foreshore of any substances or materials.

Amendment made: At end of Sub-section (9) insert the words

"Provided always that nothing in this Sub-section shall prejudice or restrict the right of the owners of such bed, soil, or foreshore to compensation for damage sustained by them through the exercise of the powers thereby conferred, and that the powers conferred by this Sub-section shall not be exercised in any way that might interfere with or prejudicially affect the undertakings or statutory right of any railway company incorporated by Act of Parliament except with the consent of such railway company."—[Mr. Munro.]

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

BOLSHEVIK ROUBLE NOTES.

Sir J. D. REES: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the possession of Bolshevik money has been made illegal in British India?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The possession of any rouble notes in India Was made illegal by ordinance in 1919 and 1920, and the operation of the ordinance was continued by Act No. XXX. of the latter year.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to recommend the Government at home to pass a like ordinance or law?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In view of the trading agreement which has been signed with Russia, will this Regulation be released in regard to bonâ fide merchants trading with Russia?

Mr. MONTAGU: I think that would depend upon whether we have evidence of a cessation of Bolshevik propaganda in India.

ARMY.

Sir J. D. REES: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the main and fundamental recommendations of the Esher Committee have yet come before His Majesty's Government after consideration by himself in Council?

Mr. MONTAGU: The answer is in the negative.

Sir C. YATE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the Army in India has already been reduced by 6,000 British and 7,500 Indian troops under pre-War strength; and, if so, whether the safety of carrying out such large reductions in the Army in the face of the agitation and unrest now rampant in India has been considered?

Mr. MONTAGU: The present proposals of the Government of India, if they are eventually sanctioned, will have the effect of reducing the fighting units of the Army in India approximately to the extent mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend. The proposals have been made by the Government of India on the recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief, after full consideration of all the factors in the situation, of which not the least important is the improved mobility and equipment of the Army in such matters, for instance, as the establishment of the Air Force and the provision of armoured cars, which to a large extent compensates for the reduction in personnel. As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the whole question is to be considered by a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence.

Sir C. YATE: Are we to understand that these reductions have already been carried out?

Mr. MONTAGU: It is not accurate to say that the reduction in the British forces has been sanctioned; what has occurred is that a considerable number of British forces in India left India for War purposes and have not yet returned.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the agitation and unrest now rampant in India would not be more speedily reduced by cutting
down expenditure rather than by the keeping up of unnecessary expenditure at a time of such great economic trouble in India?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think that anyone wants unnecessary expenditure, but what we are determined to see is that the armed forces of the Crown in India are adequate for the protection of India.

AFGHANISTAN NEGOTIATIONS.

Sir C. YATE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he can give any information regarding the negotiations with Afghanistan now being carried on at Kabul.

Mr. MONTAGU: The negotiations, which have as their object the conclusion of a treaty of friendship, are proceeding I am not at present in a position to make any further statement.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY.

Sir C. YATE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for India who is the present Director of Wireless Telegraphy in India; whether the wireless expert to the Government of India, originally sent out from home, has since resigned, on appointment as director of the Marconi Company; whether the wireless system in India required for military purposes is complete; if not, what steps are being taken to make it so; and whether the complaints in the Indian Press as to the unsatisfactory condition of commercial wireless are justified.

Mr. MONTAGU: Colonel A. Simpson, who was appointed Director of Wireless Telegraphy in India in 1919, resigned last year, and subsequently joined the Board of the Marconi Company. In his place I have appointed Commander R. L. Nicholson, D. S. O., late R. N., who is leaving for India next week. So far as I am aware, the wireless system in India required for military purposes is complete as regards internal communication. The complaint as to the unsatisfactory condition of commercial wireless, to which the hon. and gallant Member probably refers, is too vague for me to say whether it is justified.

BURMA (CUSTOM OF SHIKHO).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will call for a Report on the habit of shikho as performed in Burma, finding out what is thought of this custom both
by British officials and educated Burmese, with a view to introducing into Burma methods less redolent of an oriental theocratic monarchy of the pre-Christian era?

Mr. MONTAGU: The custom of shikho, according to the best of my information, is an observance or mark of respect incidental to religion as well as to etiquette among Burmans. It would be contrary to the policy definitely laid down in 1858, and consistently followed since, for the Government to attempt to change the usage.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a number of British officials in Burma who are so disgusted with the habit that they will not allow it to be done to them?

Mr. MONTAGU: No; I am not aware of that.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries about this custom, which is causing great unrest in Burma at the present time?

Mr. MONTAGU: I will bring my hon. and gallant Friend's question to the notice of the Government of India.

VICEROY (TITLE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 10.
asked the the Secretary of State for India whether, in deference to the demand from Burma, any steps are being taken to change the style and title of the Viceroy to Governor-General of India and Burma?

Mr. MONTAGU: This matter will, I hope, be considered in connection with the Government of Burma Bill. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the recently published correspondence on Constitutional Reform in Burma which shows my hope that the change may be effected.

Sir C. YATE: Will the question as to the separation of Burma from India be considered?

Mr. MONTAGU: Yes.

RIOTS AND CASUALTIES.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many riots and disturbances have occurred in India since the 1st of March; what number of casualties have resulted to the civil population and to the servants of the
Crown; how many of such outbreaks have been due to the influence of Gandhi or his policy; in cases where the outbreaks were not due to his influence or action, if he will state what causes they were due; and whether the rebels tried subsequently to take advantage of the situation.

Mr. MONTAGU: I have received reports of ten riots and disturbances during March. In six of them there were no casualties reported. In one tea garden riot some persons attacked were injured, not seriously; and in a faction fight in Southern India one person was killed. In the remaining two cases 13 rioters were killed and 25 wounded by police fire, and some police were injured, not seriously, the number not being given. It is very difficult to assign one definite cause, for there are usually contributing factors, but three of the disturbances were of the nature of labour troubles, and three of religious disputes; one arose from agrarian grievances and in one prisoners broke out from jail. The other two were brought on by a strong agitation against liquor shops, which is ascribed in part to a genuine temperance movement and in part to the general non co-operation programme. I have no doubt that attempts were made by ill-disposed persons to take advantage of the situation.

Sir C. YATE: Is it not a fact that most of these riots were owing to political agitators and the agitation got up by them?

Mr. MONTAGU: I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend would ascribe the disturbances to anything but agrarian causes.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman get, or has he got any report on the shooting at Majpur that he can communicate to the House?

Mr. MONTAGU: I think—I speak from memory, because my hon. and gallant Friend has not given me notice of the question—that communiqués, based on every telegram I have received, have already been published; but if there is anything further, I will communicate with the hon. Member.

Sir C. YATE: Were not the Rae Bareli riots primarily due to political agitators?

Mr. MONTAGU: I think I am right in saying that the Rae Bareli riots were due entirely to agrarian causes.

NAVAL ARMAMENTS, JAPAN.

Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what information he has with regard to the warship building programme of Japan; how many capital ships are under construction; and what is the proposed displacement, speed, and armament of these ships?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): From time to time the public Press has provided the following information. The Japanese programme of construction extends to the financial year 1927–28 inclusive. The residue remaining to be completed on 18th January, 1921, was:—


Battleships

7


Battle Cruisers

8


Cruisers of 7,000 tons and over
4



Light Cruisers of under 7,000 tons
22




—
26


Destroyers of 1,000 tons and over
36



Destroyers of under 1,000 tons
34




—
70


River Gunboats

5


Submarines
Not known.


Auxiliaries
 Several.


Five capital ships were under construction on 18th January, 1921. Their displacement, speed and armament are reported in the Press as follow:—
One ship: 33,800 tons, 23 knots, eight 16-inch guns and eight torpedo tubes. Two ships: 40,600 tons, 23 knots, eight or ten 16-inch guns and eight torpedo tubes. Two ships: 43,600 tons, 33 knots, eight 16-inch guns and eight torpedo tubes.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (PENSIONS).

Mr. WILKIE: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that the various Superannuation Acts applicable to industrial servants appear to make no special provision for the amplification of Admiralty instruc-
tions and letters issued relative to the present peculiar economic circumstances in His Majesty's dockyards, and that where an established employé reaching the age limit of 60 years in the first half of a pensionable year is not afforded facilities for continuing in the service beyond the above-mentioned age to permit of him completing a full pensionable year over and above the age of 60 years, or of him being credited for pension with the amount of time in periods of less than a full pensionable year, for which periods the employeé is mulcted of weekly sums, but is not assessed for pension upon such sums, instructions can now be issued for established employés under such conditions to continue in the service until a full pensionable year has been completed, or be permitted to retire on pension at such a period as between 59 and 61 years when a full pensionable year has been completed?

Mr. AMERY: It is not permissible under the Superannuation Acts for a civil servant retiring on account of age to be awarded a pension until he actually attains the age of 60, nor can an award be assessed upon uncompleted years of service. A dockyard workman who, when he reaches 60 years of age, requires three months or less to complete another year's service for pension may be retained to complete that year. It is regretted that any proposal for the extension of this concession cannot be entertained.

Mr. WILKIE: Did not the Minister, in reply to that part of the question, where an employé reaching the age limit in the middle of the year was not permitted to finish the year, and received nothing for those months, say that he would see an opportunity was extended for such cases to complete a full year, and thereby receive pensions for which he had paid?

Mr. AMERY: I will look into that.

BATTLESHIPS (DRY-DOCKING).

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many battleships and battle-cruisers were detached from the Grand Fleet from time to time between 14th August, 1914, and the Armistice for the purpose of dry-docking; and on how many occasions this was due to grounding, collision, mining, torpedoing, and gun fire, respectively?

Mr. AMERY: The number of individual dry-dockings of battleships and battle-cruisers of the Grand Fleet during the period 14th August, 1914, to 11th November, 1918, was 254. The reasons for docking were:


—
Battleships.
Battle-Cruisers.


Grounding
4
Nil.


Collision
7
3


Mining
Nil.
Nil.


Torpedoing
1
Nil.


Gunfire
3
4


Other reasons, such as refits, fouling propellers, etc.
179
53


Total
194
60

BATTLE OF JUTLAND (TORPEDOES).

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 17.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any and, if so, how many torpedoes were fired from battleships at the battle of Jutland; whether the retention of torpedo tubes is considered necessary; and whether the space occupied by them would be better used if converted to wings and water-tight compartments?

Mr. AMERY: The numbers of torpedoes fired from battleships and battle-cruisers, respectively, during the battle of Jutland were five and seven. It is not in the public interest to give the further information asked for.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are the Admiralty not satisfied that every opportunity for firing torpedoes with any chance of success was taken in the battle, and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman ascertain what the number fired could have been?

Mr. AMERY: I could not answer that without notice

NEW CAPITAL SHIPS.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 18.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as reported in the Press, the new battleships are to be armed with guns of 18-inch calibre and 75 feet length; whether such guns can be manufactured at the Royal Gun Factory, Woolwich, with plant now existing there; and, if not, what outlay is entailed in adding to the plant to enable this Government factory to manufacture them?

Mr. LAMBERT: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the estimated cost of the new capital ships, including armament, to be laid down by the Admiralty; and whether details of size, speed, armament, and protection can be given?

Mr. AMERY: It is not in the public interest to disclose information on these matters at present.

Mr. LAMBERT: When can we have information about the cost of the new battleships?

Mr. AMERY: I am afraid I cannot answer that question.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Government to lay down the new capital ships in the royal or private yards; if the matter is not yet decided as to all four ships, will he give a promise that one of the new ships to be laid down immediately shall be laid down in Devonport Dockyard; and, if unable to make such a promise, will he give his reasons?

Mr. AMERY: The dimensions of the slips at the royal yards are at present not adequate for the construction of capital ships of the new type. The question of the time and cost of alterations to enable this construction to be undertaken at the royal yards is being investigated, and the results of the enquiry will be taken into consideration when the time arrives to place orders for the new ships. It is, in any case, unlikely that the Admiralty will be in a position to place orders for three months.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are steps to be taken immediately to lengthen these slips, or is it merely that there is an investigation by the Admiralty?

Mr. AMERY: The question of enlarging the slips is being investigated.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are steps being taken immediately, at Devonport we shall say, to enlarge these slips or is it only an investigation at the Admiralty?

Mr. AMERY: There is an investigation at the Admiralty.

PRIZE FUND.

Viscount CURZON: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty by what date will
the accounts of the prize fund for the year ending 31st March, 1921, be completed; by what date the various prize court accounts will be cleared up; and when it will be possible to state how much more than the original appropriation in respect of prize money for the Royal Navy will be available for distribution?

Mr. AMERY: It cannot at present be stated at what date the accounts of the Naval Prize Fund for the year ending the 31st ultimo will be ready for presentation to Parliament, or when the various court accounts will be finally cleared. As regards the amount available for the final distribution, it is hoped that the necessary figures will be obtainable by the end of this year.

RETIREMENT ON PENSION.

Mr. WILKIE: 23.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that there exists a desire on the part of some officers and men to retire on pension at the age of 55 or over, in particular those who have returned from overseeing and surveying duties; and whether he will issue instructions to allow of these special cases being considered and forwarded to the Admiralty for approval?

Mr. AMERY: I assume that the hon. Member refers to dockyard officers and workmen. Pensions can be awarded only in accordance with the Superannuation Acts, and under these Acts men under 60 cannot be retired with pension except in cases of invalidity or abolition of office; therefore, even if it were thought desirable to do so, it would not be possible to meet the hon. Member's wishes in this matter without further legislation.

Mr. WILKIE: Seeing that we are discharging so many men from the dockyards, would not it be possible to retire those men, who are willing to retire before their time, instead of others being discharged, thereby effecting a saving to the nation?

Mr. AMERY: I understand that when there are reductions a certain number of workmen are given the option of retiring before their time on pension, though subject to liability to recall to service if there is again an enlargement of the establishment.

HOSPITAL, YOKOHAMA.

Commander BELLAIRS: 24.
asked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty can take steps to abolish the Royal Naval Hospital at Yokohama as a needless source of expense?

Mr. AMERY: The Royal Naval Hospital at Yokohama is required for the reception of convalescent cases from Hong Kong to remove them from the period of hot and damp weather experienced there. Its abolition would result in a larger number of cases being invalided home from the China Station, with the consequent inconvenience and expense. I am therefore unable to agree with the view of my hon. and gallant Friend that the hospital is a needless source of expense.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is my hon. Friend aware that, though this hospital has something like 80 or 90 beds, in the year 1920 not a single patient was accommodated, and the maximum number accommodated was only eight in recent years; and is it not ridiculous to have such expense maintained?

Mr. AMERY: I noticed those figures, and was struck by them, but I understand that the reason was that the hospital was not open last year at the time, when patients from Hong Kong are usually sent there; but I will inquire further into the matter, and see if any economy can be effected.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE (OFFICERS).

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 25.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any decision has yet been come to with regard to the granting of marriage allowances to officers of the Royal Navy on the same lines as to officers of the Army; and, if not, when he expects the decision to be arrived at?

Mr. AMERY: I regret that I am unable, at present, to make any statement on this question.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: When will the hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement?

Mr. AMERY: I cannot say yet.

Sir C. YATE: Is the matter under consideration at present?

Mr. AMERY: Certainly.

GUNS (WOOLWICH PLANT).

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: 19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the policy of the Admiralty to set the pace in respect to increasing the size of naval guns; and, if so, whether he will, looking to the future, at once arrange for plant being installed in the Royal Gun Factory, Woolwich, to manufacture guns of 24-inch calibre and 90-feet length?

Mr. AMERY: The reply to both parts of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

PRISONERS (CONVEYANCE BY SEA).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if Irish prisoners are conveyed from Ireland to Portland in destroyers and sloops; what accommodation is provided for these prisoners, especially in the destroyers; and whether the prisoners are allowed between decks in bad weather?

Mr. AMERY: One light cruiser, one sloop, and two twinscrew minesweepers have been used for conveying prisoners from Ireland to Portland. Destroyers have not been employed on this service. Prisoners have been given accommodation between decks in each case.

MURDERS AND OUTRAGES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 40.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he is now aware that John O'Connor, of Gloundaeagh, Tarranfore, County Kerry, was arrested on 15th December last whilst on his way to church and driven away in a motor lorry; that he was beaten while in the lorry, thrown from the lorry into the road, fired on, and wounded; that civilians then carried him into the house of Thomas Brosnan, Threegneves, Currow, Tarranfore, where he was tended by the Rev. J. J. O'Sullivan, of Killentierna, Tarranfore; that four officers returned from Tarranfore, to which place the lorry had proceeded, in a motor-car, and on ascertaining from the Rev. J. J. O'Sullivan where O'Connor lay wounded, entered Brosnan's house and murdered O'Connor by firing three revolver bullets into his head; whether he is aware tha the Rev. J. J. O'Sullivan, Mr. Brosnan, and other eye witnesses are prepared to
testify to the foregoing facts on oath; whether an inquiry has been held; whether these witnesses were called; what was the finding; what action, if any, has been taken; and whether any compensation is to be paid to the widow and seven children of the murdered man?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Denis Henry): My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary regrets that he is not yet in a position to reply to this question. The Court of Inquiry is still sitting.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the committee which has so far sat has declined to call some very important witnesses, including a Protestant gentleman who witnessed the first part of the occurrence, that it has not yet taken the evidence of Mr. O'Sullivan, and that when the widow asked "Why not?" she got no answer? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has full details, and will he make further inquiries?

Mr. HENRY: Certainly. I will communicate my hon. and gallant Friend's statement to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 41.
asked the Chief Secretary whether he can now say if the stores of the Kiltoghert Co-operative Agricultural and Dairy Society were, with its stock, burned out on the night of the 8th March; if he can give any information as to the perpetrators of this outrage; and what steps he proposes to take to have a full inquiry and to bring them to justice?

Mr. HENRY: According to the police reports these stores and their contents were completely destroyed by fire on the night of the 8th ultimo. The matter has been specially investigated by a senior police officer, who has interviewed the manager of the stores and the owners of several other properties in the neighbourhood which were destroyed or damaged on the same night, but no evidence has yet been forthcoming as to the persons by whom the outrages were committed.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the inquiry be continued?

Mr. HENRY: Yes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the Attorney-General for Ireland if the Press were excluded from the inquiry into the alleged murder of Christopher Reynolds by forces of the Crown yesterday in Dublin, and if means will be taken to prevent the recurrence of any such action?
I put this question on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. O'Connor), who requested me to apologise to the Attorney-General for the somewhat short notice given.

Mr. HENRY: On the re-opening yesterday morning of the court of inquiry into the death of Reynolds, the President stated that Counsel for the relatives of the deceased person would be admitted, but that no other members of the public except those who were called to give evidence could be present. This statement was made under a misapprehension, and as soon as the attention of the Government was called to the matter it was corrected, and the court, which had not meanwhile sat, was adjourned until to-morrow.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that the Press will be admitted?

Mr. HENRY: Yes, Sir.

Captain W. BENN: Will their reports be published, without any supervision of any kind by the President of the inquiry?

Mr. HENRY: I must ask for notice of that question.

POLICE PENSIONS.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 42.
asked the Chief Secretary the number of Irish police pensioners under 60 years of age who retired prior to 1st April, 1919, and who are debarred from receiving any benefit under the Increase of Pensions Act, 1920?

Mr. HENRY: The number of pensioners who retired prior to 1st April, 1919, in the case of the Dublin Metropolitan Police is 151. An exact figure is not available for the Royal Irish Constabulary; but it is estimated that the number in the case of that force is about 2,300.

Mr. LYNN: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a great many of these pensioners are in a state of hardship now, and will he see that something is done to help them?

Mr. HENRY: I am quite aware of the hardship, but recently the matter has been considered by this House, and the Act of 1920, though it applied to certain persons, did not include these men.

Mr. LYNN: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not show some practical sympathy with these men?

Mr. HENRY: I will communicate my hon. Friend's suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not make another appeal to the Treasury?

KERRY BRIGADE (COMMAND).

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for War why Colonel-Commandant R. O'H. Livesay, C. M. G., D. S. O., recently relinquished command of the Kerry brigade, and how he is now employed?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Sir R. Sanders): Colonel Livesay was relieved of his command on military grounds, which I do not think desirable to make public. He is now unemployed and on half pay, but will again be employed should a suitable opportunity offer.

Major M. WOOD: Is it not a fact that he was relieved of his command because he disapproved of the Government methods of governing Ireland?

Sir R. SANDERS: I cannot add anything to the answer which I have given.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT, 1920.

Mr. T. WILSON: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour how many trade unions and how many friendly societies have made arrangements to administer the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, as provided for in Section 17 of the Act; and how many persons are entitled to receive their unemployment benefit through the trade unions and friendly societies and how many through the labour exchanges?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): Arrangements under Section 17 of the Act are in operation with 185 trade unions and 20 friendly societies. The number of insured persons entitled to claim, State unemployment benefit through the associations having such arrangements is estimated to be rather more than 2,500,000. There are thus about 9,500,000 who can obtain benefit only through the Employment Exchanges, but for various reasons a certain number of the members of the associations referred to also obtain their benefit through the Exchanges; in particular this is so in certain cases where the arrangements have been completed very recently.

UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS.

Lieut.-Colonel POWNALL: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour, if he can give figures showing how the extent of unemployment in this country compares with that of the principal European countries and the United States of America?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to replies, of which I am sending him copies, given by me on 14th and 21st March to similar questions asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Waterloo, and the hon. Member for Stratford, respectively.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

TREATMENT, IRELAND.

Sir J. BUTCHER: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the treatment of ex-service men at the hands of rebels in Southern Ireland, resulting in the refusal of employment, and causing great distress to these men and their families; whether he can state the number of ex-service men who have been provided with employment under the special grant recently made for public works in Ireland; and whether he will confer with other public Departments in Ireland with a view to ensuring that, as far as possible, ex-service men shall be given a preference for employment in all works undertaken by these Departments, and that all contracts for public works shall contain a clause binding the contractors to give such preference?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have no precise information on the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend. I am, however, obtaining a report from the Irish Department of the Ministry of Labour, and will communicate further with my hon. and learned Friend.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the right hon. Gentleman not give any of the details asked for?

Dr. MACNAMARA: No. I would rather get them direct.

SMALL HOLDINGS, BEDFORDSHIRE.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that Portobello Farm, near Potton, Bedfordshire, has been specially acquired through his Department for the provision of land for small holdings for ex-service men; whether, when the whole-of this land has been allotted, there will still be a large number of landless ex-service applicants in this part of the county; whether recently the county committee let some 10 acres to a civilian, who already has a fair acreage; whether this land has been let at a less rent than that demanded from ex-service men; and whether, in view of these facts, he will consider the possibility of having this land transferred to ex-service applicants who are still awaiting holdings?

Mr. TOWYN JONES (Lord of the Treasury): The farm in question, which has been acquired by the Bedfordshire County Council, consists mainly of high class market garden land, but also comprises a proportion of low-lying meadows. The major portion of the farm has been sub-divided into 105 small holdings to provide ex-service men who served overseas, and who reside in the Parishes of Sutton and Potton with market garden land, but in order to let the house, buildings and certain of the meadows to the best advantage it was necessary to create one, larger holding of about 50 acres. This holding, which contains 10 acres of arable land, the area to which the hon. Member presumably refers, has not yet been let, although the council have made every effort to find an ex-service tenant for it. Meanwhile, in order that the land may not become derelict, the 10 acres are being cultivated temporarily on behalf of the council by an ex-service man, under the superintendence of his father,
a local surveyor, but as there is no tenancy no question of rent arises. It is not considered advisable to take this 10 acres away from the 50-acre holding, as to do so would spoil the letting value of the holding. So far as the Ministry is aware there are no Sutton and Potton ex-service applicants who served overseas who have not been provided with land, and steps are being taken to acquire other land to satisfy the demand from any approved ex-service applicants in the neighbouring parishes.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.

Mr. HURD: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the sense of grievance felt by the 113 ex-service men who passed the qualifying examination for positions as officers of Customs and Excise in December last and who are still without appointments; and whether those ex-service men whose careers were interrupted by the War will be given employment in priority to fresh candidates at competitive examinations who were at school or in civil employment during the War?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young): I have been asked to reply. The qualifying examination of December, 1920, was the last of a series held for the post of officer of Customs and Excise under the Reconstruction Regulations by which competitive selection among ex-service men was substituted for the normal system of open competitive examination. Of the 168 men who passed the qualifying examination last December and attended for interview, 55 were recommended by the Selection Board for appointment in the vacancies reported by the Board of Customs and Excise. The unsuccessful competitors at the numerous competitions which have been held under the Reconstruction Scheme for a variety of posts have no claim to appointment on the ground that they qualified to appear before the Selection Board. No arrangements have yet been made for the future recruitment of officers of Customs and Excise.

Mr. HURD: May I ask whether we are to take it then that these new competitors passing examinations are to be put into the service at the expense of ex-
service men who have already passed something in the nature of an examination?

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: No. The point is, I think, clear that passing a qualifying examination only entitles to proceed to the Selection Board and gives no claim at all. A candidate is not successful until he passes the Selection Board. As the hon. Member no doubt knows, the Selection Board always gives due weight, and it may be said preeminent weight, to the ex-service qualification.

Mr. HURD: What I want to know is whether these ex-service men are to be kept out of this service while young fellows are being pushed in from school?

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: My information is certainly to the contrary effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RIDGMONT, BEDFORDSHIRE.

Mr. HAYDAY: 31.
asked the Minister of Health if he will cause inquiries to be made into the delay in the erection of cottages at Ridgmont, Bedfordshire; whether the plans have been passed for the same by the rural district council; and, if so, will he instruct the local authority to speed up the erection of those decided upon in view of the scarcity of cottage accommodation in that parish?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir A. Mond): I understand that plans have been adopted for six houses in this village and I will have inquiries made as to the present position.

CONTRACTS (DIRECT LABOUR).

Major PRESCOTT: 32.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can give the average number of bricks laid per day by the bricklayers on the Gorton Mount estate, Manchester; whether houses built by direct labour on this estate are costing £120 less than precisely the same house let to builders by contract; whether some explanation will be given to the House as to why contract dwellings carried out under the supervision of the Ministry are so needlessly expensive; and if he will state what
steps are being taken in the public interest to bring about a revision of the existing contracts?

Sir A. MOND: Complete information as to the number of bricks laid per day on this scheme is not available, but such information as I have indicates that an average of about 500 per day is being obtained. No houses have been completed by direct labour and no final costs are available for any houses on this site. A comparison cannot therefore be made at present between the costs of the houses being erected by direct labour and of those being built under contract. I am not prepared to accept the implication in the latter part of the question and I am personally going into the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Major PRESCOTT: As I have already got the information, would the right hon. Gentleman like a copy of it?

Sir A. MOND: I should be very pleased.

WOODEN HOUSES.

Sir W. DAVISON: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether grants at the rate of £260 per house, the bonus payable by the Ministry for the erection of brick or concrete houses, have been paid or authorised for the erection of wooden houses built of green unseasoned elm or other unseasoned wood; and under what circumstances?

Sir A. MOND: The grant of full subsidy in respect of houses constructed of hard woods was agreed to on the advice of a Committee appointed by my predecessor to advise the Department in regard to new methods of construction. The houses must comply with the specifications laid down by the Department for timber construction. The question of seasoning does not affect the quality of the timber used, but only its shrinkage, and provision is made in the construction to meet this. I am proposing to go into this question afresh.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, apparently, a larger grant is made for the erection of houses of unseasoned wood than the grant authorised in respect of the erection of houses of seasoned wood? Is it not probable that unseasoned wood houses will be less serviceable?

Sir A. MOND: I am going into the whole question. So far, I have not had time to go into it, and I cannot answer the hon. Member's question.

Sir C. YATE: Is the same grant given for the erection of four-room houses as for six-room houses?

Sir A. MOND: No, certainly not.

BRICKLAYING (GREAT BRITAIN AND BELGIUM).

Commander BELLAIRS: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet ascertained any comparable figures as to the relative day's work in bricklaying in this country and in Belgium?

Sir A. MOND: Inquiries have been made in Belgium but no comparable figures of bricklayers' output appear to be available.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE.

RE-GRADING (WOMEN).

Lieut.-Colonel HURST: 33.
asked the Minister of Health whether women are to be allotted not more than 50 executive posts upon re-grading; and whether he will undertake that the 66 first-class women clerks and 210 second-class women clerks now in the service of his Ministry shall be respectively posted to the executive and administrative grades in all cases where they are now performing the duties appropriate to such grades?

Sir A. MOND: The reorganisation scheme for the Ministry of Health is still before the Treasury, and the number of executive posts available for men and women is unknown. I am therefore unable to give the undertaking which the hon. and gallant Member desires, but I can assure him that the claims of the first and second class women clerks now in the Ministry will receive the fullest consideration.

EFFICIENCY BARS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: 76.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury how many of the 3,948 second division male clerks in the Civil Service on 1st October, 1919, had failed to pass the efficiency bars in their scale, and how many of the 5,038 assistant clerks (male) in the Civil Service on the same date had failed to pass the efficiency bars in their scale?

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: I regret that I have no precise information on the subject, but I should estimate that the number of second division and assistant clerks in the Civil Service on the 1st October, 1919, who had failed to pass the efficiency bars in their respective scales would not exceed 2 or 3 per cent.

LUNACY ACTS.

Captain BOWYER: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will amend the wording of the Lunacy Acts in order to substitute the terms patients and mental hospital for pauper lunatic and pauper lunatic asylum?

Sir A. MOND: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my predecessor to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Lincoln on the 10th March.

APPROVED SOCIETIES (SURPLUSES).

Colonel MILDMAY: 37.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is taking any action, in accordance with the recommendations of the interim Report of Lord Cave's Committee, with reference to the disposal, in the interests of hospitals, of the surpluses of approved societies?

Sir A. MOND: A copy of the Report has been sent to every approved society with a covering letter, in which the society is urged to give its serious consideration to the question of using part of its disposable surplus (if any) in making payments towards the cost of the treatment of its members in hospitals. The right hon. and gallant Member is, of course, aware that this is only one of many aditional benefits which it is open to societies to provide.

TANGANYIKA.

Sir T. BENNETT: 43.
asked the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether at the forthcoming public sales of ex-enemy property in Tanganyika territory the provisions of Article 7 in the draft East Africa Mandate will be adhered to, and no racial differentiation will be imposed upon bidders?

Mr. AMERY: The answer is in the affirmative. All persons will be eligible to bid at the forthcoming sales except ex-enemy subjects and persons acting on behalf of ex-enemy subjects or in their interests.

CLOSED MINISTRIES (STAFFS).

Major KELLEY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister what is the number of the staffs of the Ministry of Shipping, Ministry of Food, and Ministry of Munitions that have been transferred to other Departments owing to the closing of those Ministries, and to which Departments they are transferred?

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: The staff of the Ministry of Food transferred to other Government Departments on1 the closing of the Ministry numbered:


Headquarters Staff
1,317


Ex-Headquarters Staff
359


Total
1,676


Of these, 70 were transferred to the Departments of Agriculture and the remainder to the Board of Trade.
Particulars of the staffs transferred from the Ministries of Shipping and Munitions to the Board of Trade and Disposal and Liquidation Commission, respectively, are given in my reply of yesterday to the hon. Member for Wood Green.

Major KELLEY: Is it not rather a farce, then, to say that these Ministries have been wound up?

MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS.

Major KELLEY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister what is the salary, and what are the duties, of the late Minister of Health on his appointment as a Minister without portfolio?

Major C. LOWTHER: 54.
asked the Prime Minister what is the salary of the Minister without portfolio; what are his duties; whether he has attached to him in a secretarial capacity any civil servants or others whose salaries are paid out of public funds; and how long it is proposed to continue the office of Minister without portfolio?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): The Minister without portfolio receives a salary of £5,000 per annum. He has attached to him two civil servants' drawn from the Ministry of Health. He will discharge duties analogous to those performed by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for War and the Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. G. Barnes) when they held a like post. In the present pressure of public business there is definite need for a Minister of Cabinet rank unburdened by Departmental duties, and the work of our colleagues in that capacity was most valuable. No time has been fixed for the duration of the appointment.

Major KELLEY: Is it consistent with the speech of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday to create posts of this kind at the present moment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The first consideration is the efficiency of government. Without efficiency, there can be no economy. This is really required in the public interest.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Will there be a Supplementary Estimate for this sum, seeing that no sum is taken in the Estimates already presented to Parliament for the Minister without portfolio?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: There must be an Estimate certainly. What I am not quite certain about is whether it takes, technically, the form of a Supplementary Estimate, or an additional Estimate, or the presentation of a revised Estimate. I am having inquiry made.

Mr. HOGGE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the urgent need for economy, he can state the grounds upon which he has appointed the right hon. Member for Shoreditch (Dr. Addison) Minister without portfolio, and the right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. McCurdy) and the hon. Member for Reading (Colonel L. Wilson) Joint Patronage Secretaries of the Treasury?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Government are not unmindful of the need for economy, but economy is not secured if the Government is not fully equipped for the work that it has to do. Under present conditions, the appointment of two Patronage Secretaries has been found
indispensable, and has not, as far as I am aware, been the subject of any criticism since it was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) on the formation of the first coalition Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

SOVIET PROPAGANDA.

Sir W. DAVISON: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, under the recently signed trade agreement with the Russian Soviet Government the executive of the Third (Communist) International, of which Lenin is the executive head as well as being the executive head of the Russian Soviet Government, are precluded from continuing their propaganda in this country and throughout the Empire; and whether the Government are satisfied that the propaganda campaign of the Third International and its affiliated societies has now ceased?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With regard to the first part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the last two paragraphs of the preamble to the Russian Trade Agreement from which he will see that the answer is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the attention of His Majesty's Government will be given to any instances of such propaganda, and appropriate action will be taken.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that special instructions have been issued by the Third International in Russia to the trade delegations in various countries, urging them that it is their duty to aim at world revolution and at the destruction of capital, and to cause disturbance among the workers of the countries to which they are accredited?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: When was that sent out?

Sir W. DAVISON: It appears in the Press, and was sent recently, I understand, to the various delegations.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: You ought to give us a date before making an accusation like that.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member (Sir W. Davison) seems to know more about it than the Minister.

TRADE REPRESENTATIVES.

Sir W. DAVISON: 51.
asked the Prime Minister how many trade representatives may be sent to this country by the Russian Soviet Government under the recently signed Trade Agreement; and whether all such representatives will be accorded the special ambassadorial privileges referred to in the said Trade Agreement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of trade representatives to be sent by the Russian Soviet Government into England, in accordance with the "reciprocal arrangement" set forth under the Russian Trade Agreement, is a matter left for agreement between the two Governments, and is at present under consideration. With regard to the second part of the question, the official agents of the Soviet Government will be given the special privileges, indicated in the Trade Agreement, to enable them to exercise their functions while in this country.

Viscount CURZON: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that any increase in the numbers 'of trade delegations is at present contemplated?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My answer, curiously enough, means exactly what it says.

Sir W. DAVISON: Do we understand there will be a strict limit put on these numbers?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: What I said was that the numbers are at present under consideration. They are subject to reciprocal arrangements with our trade representatives in Russia and their representatives here.

Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman refute these childish attacks on a Government with whom we have just signed an Agreement?

Commander BELLAIRS: Are we to understand that these representatives who are sent over here will not in any way have their luggage searched, in view of what took place with regard to the diplomatic agents of the Soviet who were sent to Italy?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That has been denied.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at Clauses 4 and 5 of the Agreement, he will see there set out the extent of the privileges respectively accorded to the trade representatives and the official representatives of the Soviet Government.

TRADE MISSION PROPAGANDA.

Sir P. MAGNUS: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Trade Mission propaganda, alleged to have been proclaimed by Lenin and issued to his agents with a view to promoting revolution in different countries, was issued before or after the signature of the Trade Agreement?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend is no doubt referring to the document which was published in the Press of yesterday. I am unaware of the exact date at which it was issued, but it would appear to have been anterior to the signature of the Anglo-Russian Trade Agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES.

Sir W. de FRECE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for the general publication of an official statement showing the menace to British export trade of the succession of industrial troubles in this country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think it needs any official statement to bring home to the country the deplorable effect that industrial disputes are bound to have on the foreign trade which is essential to our national existence.

FOREIGN WAGE MOVEMENTS.

Sir W. de FRECE: 53.
asked the Prime Minister, for the purposes of comparison, if he will cause to be issued a statement showing wage movements in other countries whereby they are able successfully to compete with us in the neutral markets of the world?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I have been asked to reply. As has already been stated, we are unable to furnish the information desired by my hon. Friend. International comparisons of this kind can, I am afraid, produce little or no practical result until the various countries have reached an agreement to carry out wages inquiries on
a national scale at concerted and frequent intervals, and so pursue identical methods, not only in collecting and collating data, but also in presenting the results.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Would it not be possible to get a great proportion of that information from our Consular Service?

Mr. HAILWOOD: Is not the policy of the Government in direct opposition to that, by setting up district instead of national schemes?

Mr. RAPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Sweden all the trade unions have agreed that their wages shall be reduced according to the index cost of living, now 150 per cent. above pre-War rate, and further that they have agreed to hold an inquiry every month to adjust wages on this same basis?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I am not.

—
January to May, 1920.
June, 1920.
July, 1920.
August, 1920.
September, 1920, to May, 1921.



Per ton.
Per ton.
Per ton.
Per ton.
Per ton.



s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


For lots of 4 tons and over
84
0
120
0
121
0
122
0
127
6



January—May, 1920.
June, 1920—May, 1921.


Additional charges for smaller lots as follows:—

s.
d.


s.
d.



1 ton and over but under 4 tons

10
0 per ton


15
0 per ton.



2 cwts. and over but under 1 ton

1
0 per cwt.


1
6 per cwt.



1 cwt. and over but under 2 cwts.

2
0 per cwt.


3
0 per cwt.



28 lbs. and over but under 1 cwt.

3
0 per cwt.


4
6 per cwt.



14 lbs. and over but under 28 lbs.

4
0 per cwt.


6
0 per cwt.

The above maximum prices were fixed by agreement between the Ministry and the trade, and are operative until 31st May, 1921. The export of basic slag is prohibited except under licence. Otherwise this commodity is not controlled by any Government Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

WAGES DISPUTE.

MINES (FLOODING).

Sir T. BENNETT: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the advisability, with a view to

BASIC SLAG.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: 60.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the selling price during the year 1920 and the present retail price of ground basic slag 30 per cent.; and whether this commodity is still under the control of any Government Department?

Mr. TOWYN JONES: As the information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member involves a good many figures, I will ask him to allow me to circulate a detailed reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:

The maximum selling prices of ground basic slag, 30 per cent., since the beginning of 1920, including cost of delivery to customer's nearest station in Great Britain, or to British Port when sold to Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, have been as follow:—

protecting large and valuable mining areas in this country from destruction, of so amending the Trade Disputes Act of 1906 as to make trade unions responsible for the damage done to mines by flooding in consequence of orders and prohibitions issued by such unions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. Friend may be assured that the Government will take all steps within its power to protect the mines from destruction, but I am unable to appreciate how an Amendment of the Trade Disputes Act would accomplish this object.

PRODUCTION (SOUTH WALES).

Mr. HARTSHORN: 75.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of firms in
South Wales which, in the months of January and February, 1921, produced coal at a loss of less than 6d. per ton, the number which produced at a loss of between 6d. and 1s. per ton, and so on, in stages of 6d. per ton; the number of firms which produced coal at a profit of less than 6d. per ton, the number which produced at a profit of between 6d. and 1s. per ton, and so on, in stages of 6d. per ton; and the tonnage produced in each case?

The SECRETARY of MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): In view of the provisions of Section 21 (2) of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, I regret that I cannot give the information asked for without obtaining the prior consent of the South Wales colliery owners.

PIT PONIES.

Sir J. BUTCHER: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any further information to give as to the withdrawal of pit ponies and horses from the mines, and thereby saving them from starvation and from drowning, especially in the mines of Leven, in Fife, West Benhar, in Lanark, Bargoed, in Wales, and Dydraw, in the Rhondda Valley?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is able to inform the House, in which collieries, pit ponies have already lost their lives; what action he has taken in this matter; and whether he can definitely assure the House that all steps are being taken to save from destruction any ponies which may yet remain in the pits?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: My information is that all horses which cannot for the present be left below ground in safety and fed and attended to there, have by now been withdrawn from the mines with the exception of two horses at the Leven Collieries, Fife. In this case, the Divisional Inspector of Mines is using his utmost efforts to get the miners to allow steam to be raised at the boilers so that these horses may be got out. So far as I am aware, no pit ponies have been lost in the mines, and my Department will do everything in its power to ensure that none shall be lost. I should also add that, as I stated in the House last night,
the President and Secretary of the Miners' Federation have promised to take action for the safety of ponies at any mine where I notify them that they are in danger.

PROPOSED CONFERENCE.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: May I ask the Leader of the House if he has any information as to any developments in connection with the industrial crisis?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have to inform the House that the Prime Minister has this morning addressed letters to Mr. Evan Williams, of the Mineowners' Association, and to Mr. Frank Hodges, of the Miners' Federation—the letters are in identical terms. I will read one—

6th April, 1921.

DEAR MR. HODGES,

I would direct the attention of your Executive to the statement which I made in the House of Commons last night on behalf of the Government with regard to the desirability of negotiations being resumed between your Federation and the Mining Association. I desire to repeat that the Government tender the use of its good offices for the purpose of bringing the parties together, and I shall be glad to know whether your Federation is willing to re-open negotiations. I am sending a similar communication to the Mining Association.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) D. LLOYD GEORGE.

WAR GEAVES.

Mr. GILBERT: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the graves of men who died in Great Britain as the result of wounds or illness caused by the Great War are under the control of the Graves Commission; whether such graves are specially cared for and special stones erected as in France and Flanders by such Commission; and, if not, if any arrangements exist in his Department for the care of such soldiers' graves in this country?

Sir R. SANDERS: Under the terms of their Charter, the Imperial War Graves Commission are charged with the duty of caring for the graves of officers and men of His Majesty's Naval and Military Forces who died from wounds inflicted, accidents occurring or disease contracted
while on active service during the War and are buried in Great Britain. The Commission have accordingly undertaken the responsibility of maintaining all such graves and are arranging to erect over them, so far as circumstances permit, the same form of memorials as erected in war cemeteries in France and Flanders.

VICTORIA EMBANKMENT GARDENS.

Mr. GILBERT: 66.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he can now state when the temporary buildings in the Victoria Embankment Gardens will be cleared away and these public gardens restored to the use of the public?

Mr. TOWYN JONES: It is not yet possible to state when the temporary buildings in the Victoria Embankment Gardens will be cleared away, as the matter depends upon further reductions of Government staffs, but I hope that it will be possible to clear the buildings in sufficient time to enable the public gardens to be restored to the use of the public before the summer of 1922.

PERSIA.

Sir J. D. REES: 70.
asked the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the position at Teheran has undergone any material change during the holidays?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME (Director, Overseas Trade Department): I can add nothing to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) yesterday.

LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. HOPE: 73.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the incidence of local rating in Scotland, he will furnish a Return of the details of charges transferred from local to Imperial funds for the years 1913–14 and 1919–20, similar to the Return in Appendix C of Return of
Public Income and Expenditure, published in 1908, when the Royal Commission on Local Taxation was appointed?

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: The Return in question was discontinued on the ground that the expense involved in its preparation was not justified by results.

Sir J. HOPE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the question of publishing only that Return in Appendix C which is urgently required by certain bodies who want to give evidence before the Local Taxation Commission for Scotland? They cannot get the evidence from any other source, and they cannot give their evidence satisfactorily unless they have it.

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: If my hon. and gallant Friend is referring only to Appendix C, I will take his suggestion into consideration.

CRUELTY TO DOGS.

Mr. RAPER: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the fact that a man was recently fined 40s. by the Willesden magistrate for kicking to death a Pomeranian puppy; whether this is the maximum penalty for this class of offence; and whether, in this event, it would be possible to introduce legislation increasing the penalty for crimes of this description?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): Cruelty to an animal can be punished by imprisonment up to three months without the option of a fine. I am having inquiry made into the facts of the particular case mentioned.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If the facts are as stated, has the right hon. Gentleman power to have the sentence revised?

Mr. SHORTT: I am afraid I have not.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Has not the right hon. Gentleman power to censure the magistrate responsible for such a breach of duty?

Mr. SHORTT: No, Sir, that is the Lord Chancellor.

PIGEON-SHOOTING.

Sir BURTON CHADWICK: 78.
asked the Home Secretary, whether he is aware that some 30 dozen pigeons were killed or injured in a pigeon-shooting competition which took place on the ground of the Chatham Football Club on the 31st March; and whether he can take prompt steps to make this practice illegal?

Mr. SHORTT: I have seen a newspaper report of the competition referred to. Legislation would be required to make such competitions illegal, and, much as I regret that the law tolerates this cruel practice, I fear that the Government cannot possibly undertake legislation at present. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]

Sir B. CHADWICK: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, who, I am sure, as every other Member of the House, deplores this barbarity, whether it is not possible for him to introduce a Bill which would promptly make it illegal?

Mr. SHORTT: Of course my hon. Friend knows the condition of the time of the House. At the same time, if any Private Member's Bill were brought in, I certainly should try to do all I could to facilitate it.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is that any worse than pheasant killing?

Sir B. CHADWICK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in all the present turmoil, the House was able to rise at 6 o'clock on Monday, and, in these circumstances, is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to ask the House to sit on Saturday to pass such a Bill?

ANGLO-PERSIAN OIL COMPANY, LIMITED.

Mr. WISE: 80.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount the British Government has invested in the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Limited, and the percentage of the ordinary dividends since 1913?

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: The amount of cash invested is £4,250,000.

The dividends on ordinary shares have been as follow:—

For the year to 31st March, 1917 (the first dividend paid), 6 per cent, less tax.
For the year to 31st March, 1918, 8 per cent, tax free.
For the year to 31st March, 1919, 10 per cent, tax free.
For the year to 31st March, 1920, 20 per cent, less tax.

Sir J. D. REES: Does any other investment of money by the British Government show so good a result?

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: I must ask my hon. Friend for notice of that.

PRIME MINISTER (ATTENDANCE IN HOUSE).

Mr. HOGGE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister when he expects to resume his normal duties in the House; and when questions may be put down to him every day at No. 45?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend proposes to continue the present arrangement, which, I think, meets the convenience of the House.

ARMENIAN REFUGEES.

Sir J. D. REES: 71.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has anything new to communicate to the House regarding the continued maintenance at Bakonba of upwards of 10,000 Armenian refugees?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I regret that I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend's question on the same subject on the 28th February.

Sir J. D. REES: Does my hon. Friend expect, within some reasonable period, to announce the cessation of this expenditure?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the specific reply which was given on that date by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. At present it is not possible to amplify that answer.

EPILEPTIC CHILDREN (MAINTENANCE).

Sir B. CHADWICK: 74.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the Local Education Authority for Barrow-in-Furness, after having tried without success to obtain a place for an epileptic child in England, have now obtained a place for that child in a certified school in Scotland; whether the Board of Education has declined to sanction contribution towards the maintenance of that child on the ground that they are precluded by law from authorising such contribution; whether, if the Board have so declined, the legal ground on which the objection is made is that the certified institution willing to receive the child is in Scotland; and whether, the Board having stated that they recognise there is at present no vacancy in any certified school in England, it is possible for the Authority, under the extraordinary condition, to contribute to the educational training and care of this child in a certified school in Scotland pending a vacancy arising in a certified school in England?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): The institution to which the hon. Member refers is not a certified special school, and is not recognised by the Scottish Education Department. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative. A Local Education Authority in England and Wales is precluded, under Section 2 of the Elementary Education (Defective and Epileptic Children) Act, 1899, from educating an epileptic child in an institution not certified by the Board.

POPLAR (POLICE PRECEPT).

Sir R. BLAIR: 79.
asked the Home Secretary if the secretary to the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police district has received any satisfactory reply from the Poplar Borough Council concerning the latter's refusal to pay the precepts; how much does the police precept amount to; has the Poplar Borough Council already received the amount; have they used it for another purpose; and, if so, what steps have been taken to prevent this?

Mr. SHORTT: The Receiver has received a reply from the Poplar Borough Council to the effect that the amount now due will be paid at the earliest possible date. The amount due is £25,282. I understand that the Council included the police contribution in the sums they have already raised by rates, but that the amount raised having proved insufficient to meet all their commitments, they postponed payment of the police contribution. The Receiver has made repeated applications for the contribution, and he will, if necessary, take steps to enforce payment, but he is relying on the promise of the Council to pay at an early date.

CONTINUATION CLASSES (SCOTLAND).

Sir HARRY HOPE: 72.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has considered the resolution passed at a meeting at Edinburgh on 30th March by representatives of over 200 parish councils urging an amendment of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, whereby the continuation classes for young persons up to 18 years of age may be made optional instead of compulsory; and what steps he proposes to take to give effect to the general and widespread feeling throughout Scotland that this change should be made?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): I have not received a copy of the resolution referred to. In any event I do not propose to make any departure from the provisions of Section 15 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, as to the institution of day continuation classes for young persons under 18 years of age.

Sir H. HOPE: Will my right hon. Friend not consider making definite postponement of these continuation classes in Scotland in the same way as the Minister of Education has given a definite postponement for England on the ground of economy?

Mr. MUNRO: I have already stated in this House as well as outside that these classes will not be instituted at the present time, and I do not see my way to fix any definite date.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. HENDERSON: May I ask the Leader of the House whether there is any change in the business of the House announced for to-day and to-morrow?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It has been brought to our notice that there is a Private Bill at 8.15 to-morrow, and that it will interrupt the consideration of the Motion for moving Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates. We will accordingly postpone that Motion till some day next week.
We propose to take to-morrow the Second Reading of the Public Health (Tuberculosis) Bill and, if possible, the Housing Bill, Second Reading.
To-night, if time permits, we will take the Financial Resolution of the Police Pensions Bill, but we will not attempt to take the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When will the Treaty of Peace (Hungary) Bill be taken?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say.

NOTICES OF MOTION:

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1918

On this day four weeks, to call attention to the working of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, and to move a Resolution.—[Colonel Sir A. Sprot.]

FOREIGN EXCHANGES.

On this day four weeks, to call attention to the question of Foreign Exchanges and to move a Resolution.—[Lieut.-Colonel Pownall.]

NAVAL OFFICERS' PAY.

On this day four weeks, to call attention to certain anomalies in the pay of naval officers and to move a Resolution.—[Major Sir B. Falle.]

BILL PRESENTED.

REVENUE BILL.

"to amend the Law relating to Customs and Inland Revenue, including Excise,
and the National Debt, and for other purposes connected with Finance," presented by Lieut.-Commander HILTON YOUNG; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 60.]

INDIAN AFFAIRS (SELECT COMMITTEE).

Ordered, "That Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young be discharged from the Select Committee on Indian' Affairs."

Ordered, "That Mr. Reginald Nicholson be added to the Committee."—[Lord Edmund Tabot.]

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolution reported from the Select Committee—
That, in the case of the Eastbourne Waterworks [Lords]—Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS ACT, 1920 (REGULATIONS).

COAL INDUSTRY: WAGES DISPUTE.

CONFERENCE PROPOSAL ACCEPTED.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [5th April]:

"That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under The Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 1st April, 1921, shall continue in force, subject however to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act."—[Sir B. Home.]

Question again proposed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask with respect to the procedure in this matter. It is rather unusual that a Motion of the sort should be amended. May I, therefore, ask if you intend to call on the first Amendment standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). Will he be invited to move it in toto to omit the whole of these Regulations, or will you permit a discussion on each one separately? Perhaps I may be allowed to point out that I have an Amendment lower down to leave out certain words in certain Regulations—I do not object to the rest of the Regulations—and it would be for the convenience of Members if you would give a ruling as to how you will call the Amendments?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have considered the point, and have come to the conclusion that, as the first Amendment raises a general principle, it will be right for me to call it. On the assumption that that Amendment be negatived, it will then be open to the hon. and gallant Member for Hull to move his Amendments to amend certain regulations which the House has decided to retain in their entirety, or possibly amended.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: In view of the announcement which has been made by the Leader of the House, it would not be wise to proceed at this stage with a general discussion, and in harmony with
the arrangement that was come to, with your approval, yesterday, I would like to suggest that we proceed with the discussion of the Amendments. In the event of getting through the Amendments, and if time has to be filled up till 8.15, some of my colleagues might wish to take part in what will probably be a Third Reading Debate.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: In regard to what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, I am very desirous of making a practical suggestion before proceeding to the Amendments. It is the desire of the House, I agree, to find a solution to this trouble with the coal miners and the owners. Some two years ago, speaking in this House on the Pre-War Practices (Restoration) Bill, I made certain suggestions, and, by leave of the House, I am going to do so again. The simplest way to do that is to read what I said on that occasion.
At the bottom of all the 'ca'canny' jockeying for a price, and other restrictive practices, there is the spirit among the wage-earners that anything they do in the way of extra effort is to the advantage of what they call the capitalist—the shareholders—and not of themselves. I will not stop to argue whether they are right or wrong, but I think it would be a most excellent thing if we could get rid of that idea in some way, and I am going to make a rather bold suggestion. It is that, in the case of big industrial joint stock concerns, such as that with which I have been associated, the dividends should be limited. I say dividends, not profits. I want the profits to be as much as they can be, but I suggest limiting the dividends. If there is an excess of profit beyond the dividend, let it go first to establishing an ample reserve, so that in bad years the works do not have to shut down; secondly, to extensions to provide more employment if the state of trade justifies it; and thirdly, to pay bonuses to the wage-earners who have contributed towards the excess."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd June, 1919; cols. 1776–7, Vol. 116.]
If by Act of Parliament the liability of a shareholder to loss in a concern is limited, there also ought to be a limit by Act of Parliament to the possibilities of his gain. The question may arise how such a limit is to be arrived at. I claim that that is a very simple matter and it can be done in this way. In the case of every joint stock limited liability company the dividend for any one year should be limited to twice the yield of some well-established Government security such as the 5 per cent. loan or
Consols. Assuming the price of the 5 per cent. loan during the year in question was 80, the yield would be 6¼, and in that year I would limit all limited liability companies' dividends to double that amount, that is 12½. In the case of the coalfields, in which the property is gradually disappearing, something further is necessary. Assuming a coalfield is worked out in fifty years, an additional 2 per cent, is essential, and that means that in such a year as I have suggested the dividend of a company in that coalfield would be limited to 14½ per cent. I have been led to throw out this suggestion in consequence of the speech which the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. S. Walsh) made last night, in which he quoted a number of very high dividends, and I see no reason why dividends should not be limited as I suggest, and I believe this would do a great deal to remove much of the ill feeling which exists between the wage payer and the wage earner.

Mr. GOULD: I wish to make one or two points which I do not think have been considered by either of the parties in this dispute. It is very evident from the Debate yesterday that a policy of negation has been adopted on all sides. The coal owners and the miners do not offer anything, and we realise that the Government are unable to do anything in this matter. I wish, under these circumstances, to suggest one or two alternatives which may be considered by the three great parties interested in this dispute, that is, the miners, the owners, and the Government. I possess a certain knowledge of the coal industry, but at the present moment I agree, in view of the difficulties with which we are confronted, that this is not a time for acrimonious discussion, and if it is possible that any suggestion that I can make will be helpful towards obtaining a solution of this question, I shall consider that I have done my duty.
We have got to realise that decontrol is a factor and a force, and it cannot be set aside. The Government made it perfectly clear that we cannot have subsidies, neither can we have a period of indefinite control. We cannot agree, and I do not think the country will agree, that we shall have a system of national pooling for wages or for profits. The experience
of control in the past has been to prove conclusively that it works against the best interests of the country. I would like to make one suggestion. What I wish to say is this, that in some parts of the South Wales coalfields, if they do not persuade the pumpmen to go back the mines are going to be ruined, and it will be anything between twelve months and two years before those mines can be worked again. I can speak of collieries in Wales in an area in which 160,000 men are dependent upon those collieries, and if those men are not induced to go back to work those collieries are going to be out of order, and it will be twelve months or two years before some of the best pits in Wales will be able to produce coal again. In the meantime, every living soul in that district is going to be thrown upon starvation or the charity of the country. Let the wages stand so far as the pumpmen are concerned, and adjust their difference later on. I throw out as a suggestion to the miners that they should do this.
4.0 P.M.
There is one thing very evident as far as South Wales is concerned, and it is that a good many items are charged against the cost for which there is no justification. We have had the coal cost in South Wales jumping from under 40s. per ton. to 55s. 1d. per ton, and for March I am fairly certain the cost will be considerably in excess of 55s. per ton. Under the existing arrangements when a man does not work in a pit he is entitled to draw from the colliery companies 3s. per day for every day he does not work as a war wage. In the case of one colliery where 1,500 men are employed they produced on one Monday 1,200 tons. Then for five days in the week, chiefly due to a shortage of wagons, they drew 15s. each, that is, £1,125 which was charged out in the costs, and this added practically £1 per ton to the cost of production of that 1,200 tons. Those men have an option, if they are out three consecutive days, of getting 3s. 4d. per day unemployment insurance benefit, but they have to be out three consecutive days. The men say: "We are not sure that we shall be out three consecutive days, and we prefer to take the colliery war wage of 3s." The result is that the industry itself is charged with the unemployment dole. It becomes a fictitious item charged on to the costs. The State
escapes payment of the unemployment insurance benefit, and, as a matter of fact, the colliery costs are pushed up out of all reasonable proportions. Those are absolute facts. I suggest that the unemployment insurance regulations should be amended so that any three days, whether they are consecutive or not, in which there is genuine unemployment in a colliery shall entitle the men to their pay of 3s. 4d. per day, and that the 3s. per day which is now charged against the costs of the coal shall be liberated from the costs, because we have to realise that, if we are going to get the coal industry on a normal economic basis and if we are going to sell our coal, we must take away from the costs all superfluous charges and all charges which do not actually belong to the industry itself.
There are three parties to this dispute, the owners, the miners, and the State. The State also has to take a certain degree of responsibility in getting the industry back on to its feet. Never mind who is responsible for the present condition; we are not discussing that matter now. We know that the responsibility for the ca'canny policy has not been altogether on the side of the miners, because both sides have been struggling towards the same end for different reasons. The coalowners have been, as every other industry has been for the past five years, seeking by every means in their power to discredit control, and they have succeeded. On the other hand, the miners have been endeavouring to do all that they possibly could to discredit private ownership. The result is chaos in the industry. Reasonably-minded men in the mining districts with whom I was in consultation on Saturday and Monday, working miners, loyal men in every sense of the word, have told me that they have been discouraged and disgusted with the action of officials in regard to a number of colliery areas and districts in their refusal during the past three or four years to go ahead with development work and machinery which would increase production and bring it up to a high point, but the colliery owners have gone on with developments and getting ready for the time when control was coming off. These men have said to me: "We have never voted labour or supported labour, but you cannot tell us with our first-hand knowledge and observation"—they have worked for years
in these areas, some of them 20 years before the War—"that the costs to-day are due entirely to the wages; they are due to the fact that in some areas we have not the facilities which we should have for getting out the coal and to the fact that development work has not gone on as it should have gone on, except with the idea of producing more coal when control is taken off." We have to face the facts.
Yesterday the Debate was a policy of negation. The coalowners offered nothing and, as one interested in many branches of industry, I say that we cannot possibly go on with costs as they are, nor can we go on with our work in any industry when we first of all set about antagonising the men as has been done in this particular instance. I employ something like 9,000 men, and I shall probably have to turn all those men out on Saturday because of no fault of my own, but simply because I cannot get coal. In any event in these particular industries, shipbuilding and steel industries, we cannot compete with foreigners, and we shall have to shut down in the course of the next six, nine, twelve or eighteen months. As soon as our immediate contracts have run out, we are finished. We have practically no hope of getting any competitive business. If we can get a reduction of 10s. per ton in the price of coal, steel will be down £2 10s. per ton. To-day the lowest possible price for which we can build 8,000 ton cargo ships is £20 per ton, and that does not include any profits whatever. They are building them across the water in Belgium, Sweden, and Germany for £10 per ton. How can we get orders?
We are working in this country at a great disadvantage because our basic cost, the cost of coal, is so high. It is not altogether due to the fact that wages are so high. Although our wages in the steel industry are Very much higher than the wages abroad, they were so before the War, and we were then able to compete, but to-day we are up against the proposition that our coal cost is so inordinately heavy and high. We are burdened with false charges in the costs. I take the Government returns of the costs of coal, and I simply say with my knowledge of the industry that they are absolutely fictitious, and, if we are going to get coal back to a reasonable price,
each one of the three sets of the community must undertake their share of responsibility and face the consequential loss.
Assuming that the miners did take a reduction of half the amount offered to them, it would not benefit us. It would not give us any solution as long as we did not get the artificial charges off the coal costs. I therefore suggest that for a trial period of three months we should limit, first of all, the total profits that the owners shall take to an amount which will not be in excess of that which they drew last year; secondly, that the 3s. war wage shall be taken off the industry as a charge and shall be assumed by the State; and, thirdly, that the balance of the coal profits, whether it be 80, 85, or 90 per cent., shall be put into a pool and that 50 per cent, of them shall be set aside as an amount to off-set the 3s. 4d. unemployment insurance benefit which will have to be paid during the trial period while the industry is getting on its feet. There must be a period of three months before we can see daylight. Probably three months will not do it. We have to go out into the markets of the world and endeavour to sell our coal. We cannot to-day sell Welsh coal at the prices. We cannot sell in competition with the Americans at our prices.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) gave figures yesterday, and I read them very carefully this morning. He was quite accurate in what he said, but he did not give the whole of the figures. I find that in 1913 America shipped to Europe only 455,000 tons in ten months, and in 1920 she shipped 8,650,000 tons. In 1913 she shipped to Argentina 425,000 tons, and in ten months of last year she shipped 2,800,000 tons. We have lost the Chilian market and we have lost the Brazilian market, and whether we get them back or not depends upon the price of our Welsh coal and upon our ability to get costs down to competitive level, because we have to remember that Welsh coal is no longer, as some people assume, in a class by itself. I can assure the House that there is practically no difference whatever between the quality of the best American coal, what they call Pools No. 1 and No. 2, and the quality of the best Welsh coal. The only difference is
that Welsh coal will stack better than American coal. As far as calorific value, fixed carbons, volume, and matter are concerned, it is equally good, and serves the same purpose, and I speak from experience, because I have used it in my factories and ships. I find that our South Wales costs in the month of February were 55s. 1d. per ton. The railway transport, screening, mixing, and other charges were 4s. 4d., making 59s. 5d. The freight to Rouen from South Wales at the present time is 9s. 6d., and there is no money in that. I speak with sad experience. The total cost landed at Rouen is 68s. 11d., without any charges for profits, carrying the coal at a loss, and producing the coal at a loss, as against the American landed price of 43s. 3d. Those figures are absolutely accurate. I can ship coal to Rouen from America at these prices to-day. I can ship the coal to Genoa from South Wales at 76s. 11d., as against 54s. 3d. for American coal, to the River Plate from South Wales at 80s. 11d., and from America at 56s. Those facts have to be faced by the House. It is no use begging the point. We can argue all day on National Boards, and we can talk about pooling systems, but we cannot get away from those facts, and we have to realise that if we are going to pay for the commodities which we require from abroad we must find a market for the coal which we produce, and we cannot find that market until we get prices right.
What has been the effect of the seven-hour day in South Wales? I know that the miners will not agree with me here. It has meant a loss of production of one-sixth. On your piece-workers' rates you have an advance of 14.2. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that for a trial period of three months—I put this forward as a suggestion—instead of reducing wages and instead of taking this cut which has been proposed the men say, "All right, we produced in 1914 287,000,000 tons of coal with 1,060,000 men in the industry. In 1920 we produced 229,000,000 tons with 1,240,000 men in the industry, 70 per cent, of that which we produced in 1914. During the greater portion of 1920 we were working the seven-hour day, which is only 5½ hours average on the coal face. It had the effect of increasing the cost by decreasing the output one-sixth. It also had added
on to that on the piece-workers' rate 14.2. We suggest that for a trial period the men in South Wales"—I know this does not apply to Northumberland and Durham and some other areas—"rather than take any reduction should agree to work the eight-hour day." I suggest it because we must be open to compromise. Let us have the eight-hour day. It will bring production up practically one-sixth, and you will get your 14.2 on the piece-workers' rate off automatically, as they are getting it in the longer working hours. If you eliminate the 3s. per day War wage, and increase the hours from seven to eight, you will get a reduction of nearly 5s. per day in the wages, according to production. But the wages will not be reduced to any appreciable extent, as the increase in production will be just equal to the corresponding reduction of nearly 5s. per day. I throw that out as a suggestion. Surely the men in South Wales realise that this is an impossible condition of affairs, with the industry bankrupt, and knowing that the State cannot afford to take out of the pockets of the taxpayers subsidies for the industry? Surely they are agreeable to accept a reasonable proposition, to give up a little bit themselves, equally as we expect the coalowners to give up their percentage of the profits, if necessary, for three months. The coalowners would have to sell the coal during that period at a loss if they are to recover the markets. Many a time I have had, for business purposes, to sell at a loss, knowing that in the following period I am going to be able to sell at a profit.
I do not intend to take up the time of the House any further. I think the Government could accept the suggestion which I have thrown out with regard to unemployment insurance. It is not a subsidy; it is not a capitulation to a popular demand. It has been entirely overlooked and forgotten that the charges and costs of the coal industry are affected, and if we are going to get back to a sound economic basis we must, as we have had the benefit of the coal, and the Government have had the use of the collieries—we must share and share alike, because if we do not get the coal industry back on its feet, as far as we are concerned, as a manufacturing nation, we shall have to go down. My right hon. Friend the Member for Miles
Platting (Mr. Clynes), in the course of an article which I read the other day, said that if low production did cure unemployment, surely there would be no people out of work to-day. It is all very well for hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say, as I have heard them say, "What is the use of producing coal, there is no market for it?" It is not a question of producing coal for which there is no market. There is any amount of markets for our coal. I have inquiries for our coal at prices even from Germany. Only to-day I had one for half a million tons of coal. Hamburg wants our coal, but at a price. There is any number of markets for it, and when hon. and right hon. Members say it is due to the Spa agreement that we have lost the market for 24,000,000 tons per annum, they quite forget that before the War Germany supplied a very large quantity of coal to France, and she also supplied a tremendous quantity to Sweden and Norway, She supplied to the Esthonian and Baltic States a small quantity, and she supplied it to Rumania, Czecho-Slovakia, and Italy. All those markets are open to us at a price. The coal which America is sending to Europe to-day—8,000,000 tons of it—may come back to us at a price. I can assure the House that there is no merchant who deals in the Mediterranean or in these States which are now taking American coal who would not prefer to take Welsh coal even at 10s. per ton more. That is an established fact. I suggest therefore we do not bind ourselves to the statement that the Reparation Treaty has anything to do with the coal situation to-day. The markets which Germany formerly supplied, and which she does not supply to-day, are open to us, and if only our costs come down to a reasonable basis I am certain that not only would our export coal trade revive, but that our other industries which are also suffering from the cost of coal will have a chance of entering into competition again with foreign countries.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): By leave of the House I rise, not to take any further part in the discussion, although I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend who has just spoken on the very valuable contribution he has made to the Debate, but to read the replies which have just been received
from the Mining Association of Great Britain and from the Miners' Federation of Great Britain to the letters which I understand the Leader of the House read to it just now. The reply from the Mining Association of Great Britain is as follows:

"DEAR MR. PRIME MINISTER,

I have to thank you for your letter of this morning, and in reply beg to say that at the meeting of the joint Sub-Committee of the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation on Thursday evening, 24th March, my last words"

—this letter is from the chairman of the Mining Association—

"at the close of the meeting were to the effect that the owners would be prepared to meet the men's representatives at any time they wished to further discuss the situation with them. The owners are still willing to meet the men's representatives at any time, but I assume that if the latter agree to meet the owners they will have taken steps which will ensure that the collieries are kept free of water and in a safe condition for resumption of work.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) EVAN WILLIAMS."

The letter from Mr. Frank Hodges, Secretary to the Miners' Federation, is as follows:

DEAR PRIME MINISTER,

Your letter of even date has been fully considered by my Executive Committee, and I am instructed by them to inform you that they are in a position to meet the coal owners, with representatives of the Government present, at any time or place convenient to all parties.

My Executive Committee would be glad to hear from you as to when the meeting can be held.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) FRANK HODGES.

Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: I rise to make a suggestion. My task has been made very much easier by the speech which has been delivered by the hon. Member for Cardiff (Mr. Gould). I listened very patiently yesterday without being able to find any reference in any speech to what really is the main cause of this trouble, and of the troubles which are bound to arise out of it. Before making the suggestion which I desire to put forward, I would like to say I feel every Member of this House, and every thinking person, would never desire that any collier should work at less than pre-War rates of wages, plus the additional cost of living to-day. That is, I understand, more than the coalowners see their way to offer, and
the reason for that has been very ably given by the hon. Member for Cardiff. I need not repeat it. It is not possible for the coalowner to pay those wages and to be able to sell his coal, and it comes back to the point that we have all failed to look upon reconstruction arising out of the War from a sufficiently broad viewpoint. It means that no question of arranging wages to-day in the coal trade can be satisfactory, either to the coalowners or to the miners, and if wages are arranged to-day on any basis that is obtainable, our currency must be depreciated before any trade on that basis can come into operation. We "have been endeavouring by scrappy legislation to deal with these several points as they arise. We have decontrol of this, and decontrol of that, and we have approached all these questions without looking at the broad outlook of reconstruction in a way that will enable us—the country which more than any other has to rely on international trade—to get upon a workable basis. Where we are to-day with our collieries we shall and must be to-morrow, or soon after with our other industries, unless the Government, which already has had two years for looking into this question, will take a wide viewpoint in considering questions of exchange and reconstruction in their various forms, and deal with them as a whole, rather than in the scrappy manner in which we are now dealing with legislation in this country.
We heard just now, at question time, from the Minister of Labour how necessary it is for us to have information in regard to the labour of other countries for purposes of comparison with our own. The right hon. Gentleman was asked if he had such information himself, and he replies that he had not, and when the question was put to him if he had any intention of getting it, he replied that he would consider the point. Thus it has been throughout, and, unless the Government will go into the question of reconstruction as a whole, and obtain the assistance of those Members of the House who are here for reconstruction purposes, to help them and will get from them information such as that which has just been given by the hon. Member for Cardiff with regard to the coal trade, unless the Government will do that and will work upon it before they bring up in this House these Bills
—Bills which we have to criticise—and unless we are allowed to take some part in the initiation of these industrial matters, I feel quite sure that we are only riding on to greater difficulties. I speak with some knowledge of these matters, and I do find that, although we come to this House for reconstruction purposes, we are not able to assist the Government to this end in the manner that we might. There is no chance of any settlement on the wages question which will be satisfactory to-day either to the coal owners or to the miners or to the country, and which will enable us to go on with our international trade. We must consider those larger main questions as to our position vis-à-vis the other nations. It does not matter even if it becomes necessary for us to become a poorer nation. It may be necessary for us, quâ nation, to become poorer, but it does not follow that because nations are poor the people in those nations need be poor. We see to-day throughout the world that in all nations, whether poor or rich, there are more rich men to-day than there were before the War. You have to disintegrate the national interests in questions of this kind from the commercial and industrial interests and deal with them separately. I hope that the Government will look into the matter from the larger viewpoint of reconstruction as a whole, instead of separating matters like the decontrol of coal and the very next subject that is coming up—namely, the question of key industries—and treating them in a scrappy manner. We shall not get on in that way.

Mr. RENWICK: I do not think that any representative of the great coal fields of Durham and Northumberland has intervened in this Debate, and I want to say a word or two primarily with regard to Northumberland, and, to a lesser extent, with regard to Durham. We have heard a great deal about South Wales from the hon. Member for Cardiff (Mr. Gould), and I must say that I agree with practically all that he said. We in Northumberland, like South Wales, rely almost entirely upon exports. Eighty per cent, of the available coal raised in Northumberland has to be exported, but we cannot export it at the present time on account of the high price, and, therefore, we are in much the same position as South Wales. Durham relies upon export to a less extent. The great iron industries
on Tees-side and in other parts of Durham absorb a large proportion of their coal. Northumberland, however, relies upon export to the extent of 80 per cent., and we think in Northumberland that with a cheaper price we could regain most of the markets that we have recently lost. I am going to make a suggestion, and in making it I want it to be clearly understood that I am not speaking on behalf of the coal owners, but I am making it after consultation with certain persons who are intimately interested in the coal trade in Northumberland and Durham. We are all agreed that the country will not stand a re-imposition of the subsidy. It would cost the country £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 a year, and it must be got out of the way. The next point upon which the miners lay great stress is that they want national instead of district boards for settling wages questions. In the North of England, we have not only the mining industry, but the great shipbuilding industry and the iron and steel industries. In connection with shipbuilding there are two great societies, the shipwrights' society and the boiler-makers' society, and I know that both of those societies are national societies. The business of those societies, however, is managed by district boards, and the wages are not the same in all districts. The wages on the Mersey in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries are not the same as on the Tyne; they are not the same on the Tyne as they are on the Clyde; and they are not the same for ship-repairing in the Bristol Channel as they are on the Tyne. All those matters are managed by district committees. Surely it might be possible for the mineowners and the miners to agree in principle to a national board, and to work it in much the same way as the boilermakers and the shipwrights. I know that there is a disparity between different districts, and men are ready to leave certain districts when they know that some big repair job is going on in another district, because they can make more money. There is a good deal of flexibility. Surely a similar principle might be followed in the mining industry. I merely throw that out as a suggestion, as I gather that it probably would not be met by a non possumus, but would be considered.
In Northumberland, also, we should like to get back to the old principle of
the sliding scale. I was in this House with Mr. Thomas Burt and Mr. Charles Fenwick, representing the Northumberland miners, and I remember that I was asked by Mr. Charles Fenwick if I would oppose the application of the eight-hours' day to Northumberland, because they did not want it. Durham also did not care much about it, but Northumberland was hostile to it, and I spoke against it in this House. Then, I believe, some of the leaders in Durham begged the men not to join the Miners' Federation, saying, "Let us go on as we are. We have the sliding scale, our wages go up with the price of coal, and there is a minimum" Let us return, if we can, to that principle. It will be good for the mine-owners and for the miners, and if we can get a reasonable reduction in the selling price of coal we can easily recover most of the markets that we have lost, notwithstanding the inroads, of which we were told by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn), made by the Americans into our markets. They cannot compete in Northern France, in the Bay ports of France, in the Atlantic ports of Spain or Portugal, or in Belgian or German ports; and they have great difficulty in competing with us in the Mediterranean and in the South American market. We cannot, however, compete at present prices, and it is absolutely necessary, if we are to regain our trade and employ our mines, that we should find some means of reducing the enormous cost of coal at the present time.

Mr. SWAN: I hope that no word which I say this afternoon will do anything to militate against the possibility of arriving at a settlement. I am anxious that a settlement may come soon, for the benefit not only of the miners, but of the whole of the State. I listened carefully to what was said by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Renwick) and by the hon. Member for Cardiff (Mr. Gould), who expressed his anxiety to reopen trade with the world. I listened carefully to his suggestions, but I heard nothing that was likely to remove the obstacles to the reopening of trade. Evidently his only solution is to reduce the cost of production either by a reduction in wages or by an increase in the hours of labour leading to a larger production of coal and at the same time to a reduced cost
of production. Some of us in the North of England were not very much affected in regard to reduction of hours by the changes which took place during the War, but one thing was obvious to us, and has been made obvious by recent inquiries, and that is that where the hours of labour were least the production was greatest. Therefore, that suggestion, as a means of reducing the cost of production and increasing output, will not apply, other things being equal. Those who have had long practical experience in the mines know that men exhaust their productive power in substantially fewer hours than those obtaining even in the lowest areas, and they have to regulate their energy if they are to continue efficiently to the end of the day or the end of the week; and it has been proved in Durham and Northumberland that where men worked shorter hours their output was greater. We had hoped that with the advance of science and knowledge we should no longer be expected to go back to the dismal days of the past.
As far as regards high cost of production in mining, we repudiate any suggestion that the miners are responsible for high cost either of wages or of production. There are many other factors which militate against the coal trade of this country, and which have tended to increase wages and costs. We have sought, both with the Government and with employers, for regulation of wages and costs, but those ideas were turned down, with the result that we have been compelled, in order that we might have a reasonable standard of living, to demand that our wages should be increased compatibly with the cost of the commodities by which we have to live. We suggest that, in addition to the proposals that have been made as the only alternative whereby trade might be reopened, there are other factors which have not been given prominent consideration either by the mineowners or by the Government, and which are both militating against output and adding substantially to the cost of production. I have heard complaints not only by managers but by owners against the huge tariffs which are imposed upon them. There seems to be a sort of commercial blackmail even in mining commercial circles. Within the last fortnight I have heard a prominent official of the mineowners
suggesting that instead either of the owners or the Government being amenable to an attack on wages there are many other factors which ought to be attacked before they attempt to reduce the wages of the mine workers and he suggested that they were handicapped severely and that when control was removed it would be almost impossible for them to hold their own against other countries owing to the enormous" railway rates which they had to pay for a very short distance. In my own neighbourhood when control is removed companies will find it absolutely impossible to go on owing to high railway rates, conflicting way-leaves and royalty rents. Because of certain interests, a sort of blackmail which dare not be mentioned, because they are up against certain vested interests, perhaps prominent members of the Government, who know that all these burdens are there, are not proposing that they ought to be removed so that the coal trade may again hold its own with other countries and not have these embargoes placed upon it.
In regard to getting peace, we have been rather surprised at the manner in which the owners in various parts of the country have approached the unions in the separate districts, and I am sure the Home Secretary will agree that the manner in which the Durham coalowners have approached the men has not been such as to win their confidence in such a settlement as was recommended by the hon. Member (Mr. Renwick), where you have either a conciliation board or the old sliding scale. When they approached the Durham miners, instead of asking if a settlement was possible by going back to the old district rates, instead of seeking to get a settlement on the period of the quarter on the selling prices, they offered them 155 per cent., when on the figures they would be entitled to 211 per cent., with the result that men who could not be considered to be extremists in any sense, but always abhorred a strike, and were never afraid to face men who were likely to lead the country into a strike, have been compelled to repudiate the policy of the Durham mineowners as being very unfair and not likely to win good opinion in the country towards going back to the district rates. That policy is going to drive the Durham miners back, not only to the black, dismal days before the
War, but substantially to cut their rates below a reasonable living wage, and if control is taken out of the way again on top of that, we believe it is going to add enormously to the cost of this country. We are going to have an enormous number of mines closed down and large numbers of men thrown out of work, who must either be a charge upon the revenue or upon the local authorities for maintenance. The policy is bad. It will lead the country unnecessarily into confusion and turmoil, whereas, if the Government had maintained control for some time to come, we should have been able to hold our own and save the nation millions of pounds.
Whatever hon. Members may say, it is obvious that there is a widespread apprehension, not only amongst miners but amongst all classes of workers, that this is a policy, collusion if you like, between the Government, coalowners, and employers generally, to strike at the wage earners. The Labour movement is being attacked in detail. The first attack is upon the miners, and the railway workers and other sections think the next knock will be at their door. During the last six months the Government have negotiated openly with the mine workers, but they have negotiated with the coalowners in secret. They closed the door and came to a decision and said: "This is our offer. Either accept it or reject it." It would be very absurd to expect us to accept the conclusions of the mineowners without any knowledge as to how they were arrived at. No business man would simply say: "Here is a price. Accept it. It is all right." He would want to inquire into it. The miners have not had time to do that. The offer which is made is very inadequate. It is a substantial reduction. The terms have led to a lockout of the whole mining community of the country. It is proposed that emergency powers shall be put into operation. I do not know to whom they are intended to apply. If there ought to be any penalties on any section of the community it ought not to be on the mineworkers. Those who have led up to the crisis are either the mineowners or the Government. It is proposed to reduce the cost of production by reducing wages when we know the standard of living is already too low, or by working longer hours when we know that the miners are already called upon to work longer hours than are economical
either for themselves or for the nation, thereby diminishing. their efficiency. That is not a wise policy. We looked to the future with better hopes than any proposals that have been made to-day. We did not expect to be driven back to the black, dismal days that we have emerged from, but we hoped that by better organisation of the mines there would be reforms which would enable us to hold our own by eliminating all the factors which did not tend to efficiency and the advancement of the nation, and if we are to find a way out of this impasse it is for the Government to continue control until we are able to find our trade so that the mines will be able to be worked and our men employed not under conditions such as are being proposed but under conditions which will enable them and their families to obtain all the necessaries of life and live in happiness and comfort instead of the misery and degradation which these proposals are likely to lead to.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I beg to move, after the word "Regulations," to insert the words "other than Regulations 6, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 28 and 29."
5.0 P.M.
The object of this Amendment is that, while the Emergency Powers Act Regulations will indeed be enacted, those to which we have special objection will be left out. I really do not know whether one should look at these Regulations as being a precedent for the use of future Labour Governments or whether they should be viewed solely from the point of view of the present crisis. I cannot help thinking when one looks at these Regulations giving power to the Government to commandeer land, mines, railways, and canals and giving the Executive an absolute right of dictatorship, that they must have been brought to the notice of the British Government by M. Krassin or some of the other advocates of Bolshevism in Russia. This indeed is a dictatorship. One could say a good deal about it, but we have to realise of course that in time of war dictatorship does become very nearly necessary. When the Great War began we passed D.O.R.A., which was very like these Regulations, though not so strict in some parts and more extensive in others. Now the Government tell us that we are face to
face with such a crisis that they have to treat it as though it were a case of civil war or prospective civil war and enact all these Regulations which amount to autocracy.
The first of the Regulations is one giving the Government power to take land. I do not want to say much about that. I do not want to fight it, because it may be of use to us later on, but I do wish to say that that Regulation might be put to a certain use now to meet the question of the strike and the unemployment consequent upon a strike. At the beginning of the Great War the Government were most energetic in finding allotments all round our great towns for those who were thrown out of work by the War, from which they could produce food. I think the Government might very wisely use the powers now given to them under the first Regulation to establish a large number of market gardens and allotments around our towns where people, thrown out of work through no fault of their own, could, at any rate, produce something for themselves and find occupation other than hanging about the street corners. I do not want to say anything to-day about those Regulations which interfere with property. They are not those to which the party I am connected with particularly objects. The Regulations to which we particularly object are those dealing with the liberty of the subject, and re-imposing upon British citizens all the restraints and interferences with liberty that we knew during the worst time of the War. I do not think I need say much about No. 6. It gives—I presume to the Home Secretary—the power to endanger the lives of His Majesty's subjects by allowing anybody to drive a motor car. The next Regulation to which I want to refer is No. 16. It gives the Postmaster-General power to tell all his sub-agents to refuse to take messages of a certain character over the wire. That practically gives the power of censoring telegrams to a number of sub-postmasters and sub-telegraphic officers all over the country. It is aimed at inconveniencing, if not disconcerting, the operations of the trades unions who, if they want to send messages to their branches, will be compelled to send telephone messages instead of telegraphing. But it merely inconveniences these people—it cannot
possibly stop them—and it does, in my opinion, give an undue power to small officials in post offices throughout the country.
When we get to Regulation 19 the really important steps are taken to interfere with the legitimate freedom of the subject. Under 19, if any person does any act likely to cause disaffection among the civilian population, or to delay any measure taken for the supply of necessities for maintaining the means of transit, he shall be guilty of an offence against the Regulations. That seems to me to be throwing your net a little too wide, even in the dangerous situation imagined by His Majesty's Government. Is it really supposed that anybody who can be supposed to be stirring up disaffection—it does not state against whom, but I presume against the Government—is committing a crime. That Regulation seems to be taken from some of the more ancient despotisms of the East, rather than Great Britain. The idea that you may not attack the Government, even in private, is one that will hardly appeal to the Coalition Liberals on those Benches, if there is any Liberalism left in them. [An HON. MEMBER: " They are purified."] Purified by fire, I suppose. Regulation 20 is even more interesting. That gives the police power to prohibit any meetings or any processions. Where there appears to be reason to apprehend that the assembly of any persons—it does not say how many, but I suppose it is a case of, "where two or three are gathered together"—will cause undue demand to be made upon the police, any such meeting can be prohibited.
Regulation 22 allows a Secretary of State to use the Army, the Navy and the Air Service to work in the mines or the transport service or the railways or wherever they may be considered of use. In other words, it gives a Secretary of State power to use armed forces of the Crown to act as blacklegs, to work wherever they may be told by their superior officers. There is a certain amount to be said for that power. I certainly do not think it should be extended to working in the mines, because that will almost amount to a case of brutality to the armed forces of the Crown. Where they might be used, no doubt, and where they have been used in the past, is in keeping the pits clear of water. If that were all, well and good,
but this Regulation gives far wider powers. It gives power to use these forces in any trade so long as it can be assumed by the Government that it is in the interests of the community to do so. I am inclined to think that every trade and every form of employment could be supposed to be vital in the interests of the community.
The next Regulation, No. 23, deals with the wicked person who obstructs or withholds information. According to it, any persons who withholds any information which he may reasonably be required to furnish by any officer or other person who is carrying out the orders of any Government Department is guilty of a crime. It is not enough not to do anything—silence is to be a crime under these Regutions. That goes far beyond anything we had under D.O.R.A. I do not think even a state of civil war in this country or the alarming prospect in front of us would authorise you to treat as a criminal a man who merely remained silent. It is an entirely new principle in British law since the days when a man was crushed to death with iron on his chest if he refused to plead in Court. Some time ago we abolished that punishment, and we no longer consider refusal to plead as a crime, but now under this law we are reintroducing the theory that a man by saying nothing may incriminate himself. Regulation 27 re-enacts the old D.O.R.A. provision as to arrest without warrant. Any police constable may arrest without warrant any person suspected of being guilty of an offence against these Regulation. Good Heavens! Any person in the country may be suspected of getting in the way, or saying nothing, or harbouring somebody who has taken part in a prohibited meeting, or any of the other hundred and one ways in which you are now enabled to commit crime by doing nothing! We have during these years of war come to disregard the liberty of the subject pretty completely, but I do protest against this being re-enacted one moment before it is necessary. I believe the sky looks a little brighter to-day. There is less chance than there was of having this universal strike. If on the whole there is necessity for some such legislation as this, yet this Regulation in particular might have been postponed until the need actually arose,
rather than accustom British citizens to surrendering their rights into the hands of the police.
Then comes the Regulation dealing with attempts to commit offences, No. 28. Under it any person who endeavours to persuade another person to commit any act prohibited by the Regulations, or who harbours any person whom he knows to have acted in contravention of the Regulations, is guilty of an offence. If you allow your son to come home late at night from a meeting and sleep in the house you may be making yourself a criminal. How any body of citizens can make it a crime to harbour a man who, after all, whether guilty or not, may surely out of Christian charity be given a meal and a bed, I cannot imagine. In 1792 the French Convention tried to make it a crime to conceal emigrés who were flying from the French Revolution. They sought to make it punishable by death to harbour anyone who was trying to escape from the country. Mirabeau denounced that law as a crime against all the traditions of France, and denounced it in such terms that he swayed the Convention, and they rejected the law that they were about to pass. I wish I had the tongue of a Mirabeau to convert even the Home Secretary to the view that there is something higher than the safety of the State, that is the tradition of the English people.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to second the Amendment. In doing so, I desire to direct attention to one or two of the Regulations in order to try to elicit some information as to the exact intention of these powers. I should point out that a great deal depends upon the spirit in which we view the proposals that the Government are now making. We are bound to draw a very clear distinction between such an emergency as now confronts the country and the emergency which confronted the country during the War. I do not think the two can be compared. No doubt, this is a large and serious industrial dispute, but it is not a menace to the safety of Great Britain in anything like the sense in which the late War was a menace, and it does not seem to me to call for the drastic course which may or may not have been necessary during the War. Certainly it does not
call for the code which we have in hand, when almost everything depends upon getting a spirit of good will and good feeling with a minimum of interference with the individual if we are going to re-establish industrial peace in this country. No hon. Member opposite will accuse me of being an advocate of disorder; I hate it intensely. It has never done any good to anybody, and I am sure that nobody will be assisted in this crisis by embarking upon enterprises which afterwards they would have reason to regret; but, speaking as one who is sincerely desirous of peace, I am compelled to ask the Government whether these Regulations are strictly necessary, and whether, in the second place, they will not have the effect of embittering the feelings of considerable sections of people who are well disposed towards the cause of peace at this time.
Let me take a few illustrations from some of the Regulations which the Government propose. Regulation 6 gives power to the Minister of Transport, or any person appointed by him for the purpose, to issue licences for the purpose of driving motor cars, and the last part of that Regulation indicates that any licence may be suspended during the period for which the Proclamation of Emergency is in force. A very large number of drivers of motor cars in this country are trade unionists. They are members of bodies which may be involved in this dispute, and the question they immediately ask, and they are entitled to have an answer in this debate, is whether there is anything in this Regulation which is aimed at them in the crisis which now confronts the country. On that point I should like some information from the Home Secretary. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the sending out of telegraphic messages under Regulation 16. Practically every hon. Member will agree that in a time of crisis it is important to get the utmost publicity, to allow everybody to know what is going on, and not to drive any information underground, or to cause any movement to be conducted other than openly. That seems to me to be essential to any settlement of a difficulty like the one with which we are now faced. Is it proposed to interrupt messages which may be sent by one section of industrial workers to another? What is the intention of this Regulation? Is discrimination going to be exercised against any one
section of the community? What does the Government mean by this proposal?
Regulations 19 and 20 raise very important issues. Clause 19 deals, among other things, with acts calculated to cause disaffection among the civilian population, and the Clause which follows proposes the prohibition of public meeting or processions which are calculated to lead to grave disorder. Already, in the experience we have had in recent years, a Regulation of that kind has led to very serious controversy in many localities. Frankly, I would say to the Government, even in their own interests—although we are not supposed on these Benches to plead the interests of the Government—that they should let everybody in this country, no matter what may be his point of view, however extreme, state his case. I would allow him to do it with all the publicity he could command, because I rely first of all upon the law-abiding habits of the British people, and in the second place upon their common sense. If there is anything which assists the revolutionary extremists, it is any effort to drive their view underground. Let it have free expression, and I am perfectly satisfied that the country can rely upon the judgment of our people. Here is a power, however, that may be used against a perfectly legitimate meeting, called to state a case on behalf of any of the parties to the dispute, and a speaker who might use an unguarded phrase, of which even the most experienced speaker is guilty on occasion, might find that he has brought himself within the scope of these Regulations. I cannot believe that a settlement is going to be assisted by a device of that kind.
May I make a personal appeal to the Home Secretary? What is the greatest difficulty that Labour Members and others are confronted with in the country to-day in an endeavour to build up a sound, decent industrial system in Great Britain? Their difficulty has always been with the men who will not see reason, the men who will not argue a case, the men who are perfectly satisfied that nothing but wild and terrible methods will avail by way of solution. Regulations of this kind encourage that school, and make our task more difficult, and especially difficult in the midst of a crisis of this nature. Many of us are exercising
such influence as we possess in the interests of peace, and these Regulations do not help us. Under Regulation 27 power is given to a police constable to arrest, without warrant, people who may be regarded as guilty or likely to be guilty of acts hostile to the public safety. I regard that as a very dangerous power to entrust to a class of men for whom we have the greatest respect, but who probably cannot be presumed to know these Regulations. Knowledge of the Regulations is necessary before any such powers can be entrusted to any section of people in whatever capacity they may be employed. No matter how well the Regulations are published, no matter what action is taken to instruct the police forces of the country, it will remain true that large numbers of members of the police forces will not know the Regulations under which they are given the power to arrest without warrant. That is a very substantial inroad upon the rights and liberties of the British people.
My last point is that under Regulation 29 a justice of the peace is entrusted with considerable power in that on a representation in writing made by a police officer not under the rank of inspector he can close premises or interfere with the use of premises. In this connection a very curious distinction is drawn between the practice in England and what we gather will be the practice in Scotland if these Regulations are applied. In England the power is entrusted to a justice of the peace, but in Scotland the justice of the peace becomes the sheriff, and I submit with great respect that a sheriff in Scotland is a very different person from a justice of the peace in England. A sheriff in Scotland, as my right hon. Friend knows, is an advocate corresponding to a barrister south of the Tweed, and has great knowledge of the law; he is on the Bench; but I take it that a justice of the peace in England may be a person who does not know very much about the law. He may be merely some resident in the locality on whom this responsibility has been conferred in the past. There is a very serious difference between the practice proposed in the two countries, where in the one you require a man skilled in the law and in giving legal decisions of very great importance, and in the other you depend entirely upon a person who, in point of
fact, may know no law at all. These are a few of the objections which I urge against the Regulations. In any emergency in which we desire peace it is our business to interfere as little as possible with the rights, habits and usages of the people. These Regulations appear to me to go to the other extreme and to violate almost every right. In my judgment they will aggravate rather than help the crisis which now confronts the country.

Commander BELLAIRS: There seems to be one simple answer to be given to the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. The Government are seeking wide powers because it is impossible to foresee what will be the outcome of the present crisis. We are faced with a condition of affairs almost unexampled, or at any rate we have a prospect of such a state of affairs. We are faced not merely with a coal strike, or whatever name you choose to call it by—there is a difference of opinion upon that matter—but also with the results of negotiations which have been going on for two years past by which the Triple Alliance may call out other bodies of men to help to paralyse the community. The Government in such circumstances are bound to take these powers. As to whether the Government will use these powers we have some experience already, because we have had a railway strike in this country when the Defence of the Realm Act was in operation, and these powers were brought into existence and provided that the Government should be armed with sufficient powers when the Defence of the Realm Act had elapsed. I have read carefully the Amendment and the Regulations to which the Amendment objects. If the Amendment were carried everything which would strengthen the hands of the Government in protecting the life of the community would be practically taken out of the body of the Bill. Therefore, it will be impossible for me to support the Amendment. There is one thing which I am surprised should have escaped the eagle eyes of the Labour party, and that is Regulation 26, Section 2, which provides that the management of societies are responsible for the action of those societies unless they can prove that they had no knowledge of it. That has not escaped the eye of certain other hon.
Members who have an Amendment later on the Paper in regard to it. The effect of these various Amendments would be to deprive the Government of all real power to deal with this grave crisis. The criticism to which I have listened seems to me to be extraordinarily futile. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment spoke of the Government endangering the community by issuing licences to people unable to drive cars, when everybody knows that any Member of this House can get a licence to drive a motor to-morrow and need not pass any examination. That sort of criticism is not helpful. There is not one country in the world which would not take to itself even wider powers. The United States was faced with a national coal strike in 1919, and the Government issued orders prohibiting the trade uníon leaders from even issuing any instructions of any kind or making use of any trade union funds.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do you advocate that?

Commander BELLAIRS: No, but I am pointing out that this country concedes far more liberty in these matters than any other country, and the Government are not taking nearly the powers that have been exercised by France in similar circumstances. The Government in these emergency Regulations have done everything possible to preserve the liberty of the subject, but if the liberty of the whole country is in danger, then the Government are bound to interfere with the liberty of individuals in particular sections.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: These Regulations are put forward ostensibly to secure peace in this country while this dispute is running. Instead of maintaining peace, they will create trouble. We have been told by the Prime Minister today that a meeting is to be held. I hope that something will come of it, but is this going to help to get accepted any terms proposed? In matters of this kind no one gets all he sets out for. I have never known that to happen, and it is going to be the same now. It generally works out in this way, that the negotiators for the workmen get far enough to be able to recommend the workmen to accept the terms which they have been able to secure. Does anyone think that these
Proclamations and Regulations would make it easier to get the workmen to accept any terms recommended to them? My opinion is that it will do the opposite, and that men will see it but, and see what comes of it. Is not that the spirit of the British? This will make it more difficult to get the terms accepted. Is it too late to ask the Home Secretary to suspend the discussion on these proposals for the time being, and to see what is going to come out of the meeting that is to take place? To-day I understand that the railwaymen and the transport men decided to join with the miners. That creates a very serious position. I believe that the suspension of these Regulations would be the best thing that could be done at present. I do not go into these different Regulations, but there was one, I think, about making certain speeches. I suppose it means that the most moderate men can speak their ideas, but that the extreme man cannot without being liable to fine or imprisonment. Do you think you would get those moderate speeches if these Regulations were put in force, and the other chap could not talk? It is better to have an open free discussion in which you will get the opinions of both sides. There was another point made about sheltering. There are fathers with one, two or three sons who may go out during the day and get into crowds. Whatever happens, do you think that the father would turn one of his boys out at night? Nothing of that sort would happen whatever the consequences. Is it not possible for the Home Secretary to see other Members of the Government so as to have this discussion suspended for the moment, so that negotiations can go on, and that we may see what will come of them? Whatever America or any other country does, these Regulations cannot help us but will simply create trouble.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) was inclined to complain of other countries having taken wider powers in times of industrial distress than this country. He instanced France and America. I wonder that he did not also instance Prussia. Prussia was the shining example held out to people of his school of thought before the War. It was the great stronghold of militarism, and the divine right of monarchs and Governments. Why did he not quote the Prussian practice of dealing
with trade unions, and that of Bismarck, who was the great hero before the War in support of this way of dealing with unruly workmen? I am astonished, after what has happened during the last six or seven years, that hon. Members complain that we do not go in for more restrictions on the liberty of the subject.

Mr. STANTON: We will not interfere with the liberty of the object.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The complaint seems to be that we are actually the freest country in the world. Before the War, before the microbe of militarism was allowed to breed in our blood, the Englishman could boast of the freedom of England, of its Government, and its people, and his proudest boast abroad was that the Government of England was the freest and most sure-founded in Europe.

Mr. STANTON: We are still, or else you would be dead.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Gentleman opposite, I hope, will live as long as I, but if some of his friends had their way England would not be the most stable country, because the English people will not stand being bullied. They will not stand restrictions on their liberty, and they will not stand, above all, interference by any little jackanapes in top-boots. I do not know what they think of it in the hon. Member's part of Wales.

Mr. STANTON: In my part of Wales they are British, except when you go down.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I can address large meetings in Wales.

Mr. STANTON: Not if I were about.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: And if reports are reliable the hon. Member has some difficulty in addressing any audience in his own constituency.

Mr. STANTON: I had no difficulty in getting a majority over your side.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I would be the last person to interrupt the hon. Member, though I appreciate the compliment he pays me when he says he would endeavour to prevent me being heard. I really think that we have got something to be proud of in this country, and I object to this panic legislation, and
it is because I think with the hon. Member who spoke last that it will do more harm than good that I propose to resist these Regulations in a constitutional manner. The hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone also gave us another reason why these Regulations should be proposed apart from the examples of America and France, but not of Prussia. The Triple Alliance he says for two years has been negotiating to take concerted action if they consider that their rights as trade unionists or citizens were threatened. But he is wrongly informed. The Triple Alliance was formed before the War. I remember my business friends speaking about this sort of thing with bated breath in 1913. It is no use coming forward and holding up the Triple Alliance as a bogey when urging that these powers should be granted. The Triple Alliance is an old-standing arrangement. It does not happen to have been used, but the fact that it was formed in 1913 is no reason for passing such Regulations as these in 1921.

Commander BELLAIRS: My reference to two years ago was that at that time they began to discuss the taking of political action against the Government, not in reference to wages.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am afraid my hon. and gallant Friend is still misinformed, because the Triple Alliance I am told, by people who know much more about it than I do, was for the purpose of taking action where the interests of its members were threatened, whether by the Government or anyone else. I may point out to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft)—I refer to him because I know how bitterly he opposes nationalisation, and he and I are poles apart on that matter—that under these Regulations it would be possible by a stroke of the pen to nationalise, any property or any class of property in the country, whether private dwelling houses, lands, factories or mines. The Preamble of the Proclamation says:
If at any time it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any persons or body of persons of such a nature and on so extensive a scale as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or
any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, His Majesty may, by proclamation (hereinafter referred to as a proclamation of emergency), declare that a state of emergency exists.
A case might be made out, for example, by my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wedgwood) that the blockade of land in this country by landowners has deprived the community of the essentials of life, has prevented access to the land, and prevented the production of food in this country, and a clever lawyer might make a very good case that those words cover such an emergency. Under the first paragraph of Regulation 1, that occasion having arisen,
it shall be lawful for the Minister of Transport, the Board of Trade and any other Department approved by His Majesty for the purpose, … to take possession of any land, buildings or works (including works for the supply of gas, electricity or water and of any sources of water supply) and any property (including plant, machinery, equipment and stores) used or intended to be used in connection therewith.
It is possible under these Regulations to take possession of the railways, the mines, the land, any empty houses wanted for housing soldiers, any factories which it is thought were wrongly used or not used to the fullest advantage of the community, and to nationalise them. As a matter of fact I exaggerated when I said that the hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Colonel Croft) and I were as the poles apart on the question of nationalisation. I am not altogether in love with nationalisation. I would object to any Government having the power to take possession of anyone's property under these Regulations. I am speaking now as a Liberal. Great exception has been taken to Regulation 16 because it might be aimed at preventing trade unions sending telegrams to their branches. It might also be aimed in a very objectionable way against the proper distribution of news by journalists. It might be aimed against Press messages with the intention of keeping back facts which are awkward for the Government. Perhaps the Home Secretary will enlighten me on that point. As has been said, what we want is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and the greater the publicity the better.

Mr. STANTON: That would kill you.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I daresay I shall be alive for some time yet. Regulation 19 deals with sedition. Already the Government are persecuting people for so-called seditious utterances, and at present there are some 19 Communists in gaol. The Home Secretary gets them, not for being Communists, but for preaching what he calls sedition. I believe they are prosecuted under a Statute of Edward III. There are Statutes dating from the time of the rising of the peasants in the time of Edward III, by which anyone making a speech in which the Government is not praised can be brought before the authorities for preaching sedition. That is quite apart from the Defence of the Realm Act. Almost weekly in the Midlands men, speaking at the street corners, are made popular heroes and martyrs by being put in gaol for this offence. What we want this Regulation for I do not know, unless it is an attempt to frighten the people. If that is the case, the Government are making a great mistake, the mistake that the Prussian General Staff made in August, 1914. To Regulation 22 I take the gravest exception, because it gives the full power of the Army Act and the Navy Discipline Act and the Air Force Act over any soldiers or sailors in relation to civil employment. That is a very grave departure from previous practice. It means that you can use soldiers or sailors for forced labour. I believe that certain good people have been shocked by certain proceedings in Russia, particularly the conscription of labour. I have heard it preached in my own constituency, and I have been accused of wanting to introduce it into this country. I deny that. I am not in favour of forced labour. I hate compulsion of any sort. It is only poor labour that you get by such methods. At the same time, I can imagine a state of revolution in a country like Russia when it is absolutely necessary to make people work.

Mr. STANTON: That is it—work, not talk.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have done a great deal of hard work in my time, and I could earn my living to-morrow.

Mr. STANTON: It has been mostly talking.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Only within the last two years. It astonishes me to see the blessing of the Home Secretary given to this principle. Was the idea enshrined in Regulation 22 brought straight from Moscow? Was the Third International consulted about this? Were they asked to send forward their regulations for the army of labour in Soviet Russia? There is no difference in the world between sending, a battalion of Russian soldiers to forced labour in cutting down timber and taking 40 men and putting them at work as 40 motor drivers, on the plea that it is necessary to keep up communications. I object most strongly to the employment of the armed forces of the Crown in this way, whether at electricity works or gas works or in transport work or anything of that sort. I have no objection to the armed forces keeping order, if the police cannot do it. That is perfectly legitimate, and no Government would be doing its duty if it did not arrange it. But to put soldiers on in this way is utterly mischievous, and is likely to do more harm to the discipline of the Army and the Navy than the efforts of any of the poor agitators who are aimed at under the Regulation. Enrol your Middle Class Union, if you like, and try to attract others by higher wages. That is perfectly legal. But to take men who have enlisted in Army or Navy and force them to do the sort of work which strikers have refused to do is to ask for the gravest trouble. I hope my fears will not be realised. I do not want trouble. There are certain sections of people, and one Minister now on his way back to this country, who would like a little trouble, probably, so that it could be squashed. With regard to Regulation 23, I am surprised that there has not been some protest from Conservative Members in support of Members on this side. Is it reasonable to punish a man because he does not give you information when you ask for it? Is it British to force a man to become an informer or spy? Those are the powers demanded in this Regulation. They are required, not by the Home Secretary, who will be sitting in his office in Whitehall trying to answer the telephone, or sitting in this House, but by the little local official, who will have the power to punish men by temporary imprisonment if they refuse to give information against their comrades. That is totally against all our ideas of British justice.
6.0 P.M.
Regulation 27 has been criticised because it gives power to arrest without warrant. I have not yet heard the criticism that it also gives power to raid people's houses without warrant. We are likely to arouse much bitterness of feeling and hostility to the Government and the Government system in this country. All the information I have from Ireland goes to show that what annoyed people in 1917–1918 and 1919 more than anything else, long before there was any bloodshed by Sinn Feiners or assassinations of the police, were the raids by armed forces on private dwellings in the middle of the night. I raised the question in this House long before the killing of police had started. The domiciliary search and raid have been little known in this country in the past. They have been common in some continental countries. Nothing will annoy the Englishman more than such a practice. There is the old saying the Englishman's home is his castle. The one thing that people value is the privacy and the sanctity of their own houses. To give power to any military governor, who may be totally inexperienced in dealing with a civil population, to raid anyone's house, is most mischievous. Regulation 29 gives power to enter premises and prohibit their use. It first of all talks about premises that might be used for stirring up mutiny or sedition among the forces of the Crown. That is put in, of course, in order to disarm criticism. The Regulation also refers to any building likely to be used "in any way prejudicial to the public safety." Those are very wide terms. It is no good pointing to the fact that this Regulation also includes the offence of stirring up mutiny amongst the troops. It is no good saying that we are in favour of stirring up mutiny among the troops. That is no answer to our criticisms. These very wide words are sufficient to enable a justice of the peace to prohibit the use of any premises if he thinks they may be used in a way prejudicial to the public safety. Might this not be used against trade union premises because a trade union was organising a strike? If so it would be a breach of faith with this House. During the passage of the Emergency Powers Act the Government very wisely accepted an Amendment, put down by myself and others, which had the effect of not allowing these Regulations to be aimed at the right of striking. If you are going to
allow trade union premises to be closed against their members simply because the trade union is taking part in an industrial dispute—which it is legally entitled to do—you are overruling the considered judgment of the Government and of this House. Regulation 29 might be used to close the whole of the trade union premises in a selected part of the country. It may be said, of course, that the Government will not do anything so foolish as to use the Regulations in such a way as to embitter the King's subjects. I am not so certain of it. They told us the same thing about the use 6.0 P.M. of similar Regulations in Ireland, and also during the War, in regard to the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The appetite of the people who administer these Regulations grows with the eating. They start by raids, then the raids become more frequent, and they do not apologise to the people who are disturbed, and then the raids become brutal, and they embitter the inhabitants of the houses raided. We have seen in Ireland how the ordinary methods used by the military governors in the different districts to try and stamp out the Sinn Fein movement in 1917 and 1918 have defeated their own ends, and led to greater and greater use of power. The most demoralising thing that you can give to the ordinary person is unlimited power, and these Regulations give unlimited power. The papers yesterday were full of reports of troops being brought over from Ireland. I asked a question, without notice, I am afraid, at Question time yesterday, and the Government were not able to tell me whether it was true or not. They are the same men who have been administering the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, with results which unhappily we all know only too well. An Irish friend of mine told me yesterday that he had seen large parties of the Royal Irish Constabulary marching through London. I said they were surely men on leave. "Oh, no," he said, "they were fully equipped with blankets and overcoats and all their paraphernalia." They may be coming over here to replace the police guarding the Irish Office—I do not know—or they may have come over to attend a funeral.

Mr. STANTON: Make the worst of their visit.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the hon. Gentleman who interrupts object to bringing troops from Ireland?

Mr. STANTON: Make the worst of their visit, as you generally do. You do not know yourself, you admit.

Mr. J. JONES: Sit down, golliwog!

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not know if the hon. Member objects to bringing troops from Ireland. If he does not, why should he object to bringing police from Ireland? As a matter of fact, the Auxiliary Police in Ireland openly boast that when they are finished with the Sinn Feiners, they are coming to this country to finish with the Labour movement.

Mr. STANTON: A lie!

Mr. SPEAKER: The word which fell from the hon. Member is not generally used in Parliament, and I will ask him to withdraw it.

Mr. STANTON: I beg to withdraw it.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman quote what he said—the most serious statement that has ever been made in this House?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: That statement was made about these officers openly boasting it by Colonel Maurice Moore, C.B., who commanded the Connaught Rangers in South Africa, who has served with great distinction in the British Army, and who had a son killed in this War. He is my informant in this matter.

An HON. MEMBER: He is a well-known Sinn Feiner.

Mr. J. JONES: You made him a Sinn Feiner.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) that we must speak one at a time; otherwise there is no chance of hearing what is said.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The fact that he is a Sinn Feiner does not rule him out as a witness in a matter of this sort, especially when he has served for 27 years in the British Army, with great distinction, and the Government themselves have admitted that the Sinn Feiners are not all murderers by any means. The Home Secretary will bear
me out in that, I know very well. I say that the very fact that these Regulations exist and that we are giving the Government power under these Regulations of the very widest sort to invade the liberties of the subject, may mean that these Regulations will be administered by people who have been trained in Ireland to administer very similar Regulations in a very harsh and brutal manner. It is a risk I am not prepared to take, and I consider it is the duty of every hon. Member who has any wish for social peace in this country and for a happy issue out of our present afflictions, to join "us in protesting by voting against such Regulations.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I am sure the House will agree that this has been a distinctly profitable and interesting Debate, and I hope it will have the effect of clearing away some of the extraordinary misapprehensions which some hon. Members have conjured up in regard to these Regulations. In the first place, let me say at once that no one who reads them fairly can possibly say they are aimed at trades unions as trades unions, or that they are in any way aimed at a strike quâ strike. They have no connection with it, no relation to it in any sense whatever. Let me also remind the House, of what most of the speakers appear to have forgotten, that we are not dealing now with permanent legislation, such as that to which my hon. and gallant Friend opposite referred; we are not putting permanent powers into the hands of any man or set of men which can demoralise his or their character in the way that has been suggested. The Regulations depend for their existence upon the Proclamation of a state of emergency. Until a state of emergency has been proclaimed, they cannot come into existence, and as soon as this state of emergency ceases they cease to exist. A state of emergency has been proclaimed, but perhaps it may have escaped the memory of some of my hon. Friends that that proclamation of a state of emergency can only last a month, and if the state of emergency continues longer than a month it has to be proclaimed again, and these Regulations will have to be presented again, and the House will again have an opportunity of dealing with the Regulations, with the experience of the past month, if it were necessary in any way to
change them. Therefore, we are not dealing with permanent legislation such as that which was passed for Ireland, or such as that which was passed for the period of the War, which was, of course, semi-permanent. It is a purely temporary measure, for a purely temporary set of circumstances, strictly limited in time, so that it cannot continue without the consent of this House longer than a month, and therefore I submit, with great confidence, that those facts in themselves differentiate these Regulations from any with which this House has dealt before.
Let me remind the House that what we are doing now is carrying out a duty which we owe to the community as a Government. I quite agree with my hon. Friends opposite that it is the duty of the Government to preserve the liberty of the individual and to uphold the traditions of our country with regard to our legal procedure, our legal constitution, and our great traditions of liberty. I quite agree with all that, but the Government owe to the community other duties as well, and, surely, one of the primary duties of the Government is, at any rate, to see that women and children do not starve. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members cheer that, and, therefore, they cannot consistently oppose any one of these Regulations which is necessary for that purpose. It is essential that we should preserve to the community all the essentials of life, things that are vital to the community. I am sure they will not object to that, and I am sure they will not pretend that they or any body of men are entitled in this country to deprive the community of the essentials of life, and if that is so, we are merely preserving that which it is our duty to preserve and that which they themselves, if they were a Government, would have to preserve to-morrow. If that is so, they cannot conscientiously object to any of these Regulations which are merely for the purpose of carrying out that duty.

Mr. J. JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that all the strikers' children will be fed?

Mr. SHORTT: I cannot guarantee that all children "will be fed, of course, but I can guarantee, in spite of the sneer of
my hon. Friend, that there shall be no differentiation between strikers and—

Mr. J. JONES: Oh, oh!

Mr. SHORTT: It is no good my answering the question. I am answering the question which was asked, and I think at least I am entitled to the courtesy of some belief when I say, advisedly, that there will be no differentiation between strikers' and non-strikers' children. We are here dealing with the community, without regard to the strike, without regard to what is the cause of the emergency, without regard to any party in the struggle. We are dealing with a community which it is our duty as a Government to protect. May I deal, first of all, with questions that have been put to me in the interesting speech of my hon. Friend opposite. He asked me first whether these are strictly necessary. That is a question I cannot answer. I sincerely hope they will not be necessary, but they very well may be, and the probability that they may be is so great that it would be a distinct dereliction of duty on the part of the Government if they did not take the necessary precautions. It does not follow because you take precautions that it is going to be necessary to exercise your powers. I hope it will not be necessary I cannot answer that question, but although they may not turn out eventually to be necessary, I assure my hon. Friend of this, that it is absolutely essential that the powers should be there in case they are necessary. I am asked, do they not embitter feeling? I do not believe they will embitter feeling in the least unless they are misrepresented, but if they are misrepresented, they may very well embitter feeling; if they are represented as a deliberate attack upon trades unions, they may very well embitter public feeling; if they are represented as something done for the benefit of the owners as against the men, of course they will embitter feeling, but they will be very gravely misrepresented if they are so represented Therefore I say that I do not believe, if they are treated fairly and in a way which would recognise that they are merely the carrying out of their duty by the Government, impartially, I hope, if they are represented in that way, which is their true character, I do not believe for a moment they will embitter any feeling of any reasonable or any honest men.
Dealing with the particular Regulations that have been mentioned, No. 6 is that dealing with the licences of motor drivers. With regard to the first part, enabling the Minister of Transport—not the Home Secretary in this case—to grant licences, that is necessary. It might be very necessary indeed to give licences for the purpose of distributing food or any other purpose of that kind. With regard to taking away licences, I do not think that is necessary, and if it came to an Amendment dealing with that particular part of the Regulations alone, I should not insist upon it remaining in. I do not think it would do any harm being in, but I do not think it is necessary, and I do not think one ought to insist upon including anything unless one can say one believes it to be necessary. The next is No. 16, which deals with telegrams. That is not in any way dealing with telegrams sent by trade unions to their branches or by journalists to their newspapers. Indeed, without this, both journalists and trades unions might find themselves absolutely blocked from the telegraph lines. We have never had an emergency of this kind without finding that the telegraph lines get blocked, and they may get blocked by certain descriptions of telegrams. Let me confess at once to the House the kind of telegram that the Post Office have chiefly in their mind when they are asking for this Regulation. It is the betting telegrams, which do more to block lines in times of emergency than any other kind of telegrams. The Post Office have represented that, unless they have this power, they will not be able to keep the lines clear for such necessary kinds of telegrams as those that are suggested by my hon. Friends opposite, but every endeavour will be made by the Post Office to clear unnecessary telegrams like betting telegrams, in order, above all things, that publicity telegrams may get through, because nobody wants more publicity than the Government. You may be quite sure of that. The next Regulation is No. 19, which deals with seditious speeches. That, for centuries, has been a crime in this country, but if you proceed, which we never have done since we had power under the Defence of the Realm Act, under the old procedure, it is a cumbersome procedure and an expensive and a dilatory procedure by indictment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It safeguards the subject.

Mr. SHORTT: It no more safeguards the subject than any other form of trial. There is a trial in each case, but in that case there is a trial on indictment, under which infinitely heavier punishment can be inflicted than can be inflicted under summary jurisdiction. Here you can proceed at once, and stop the mischief at once, and I am quite sure that no one in this House wishes to allow a man to continue to stir up violence and disorder, especially in times of great crisis such as this. It is for the preservation of peace that men must keep within fair and proper bounds. Extreme opinions are not punished. I challenge anyone to point to a single man who has been prosecuted because his opinions are extreme, but incitement to violence is very different from advocating extreme opinion, and incitement to violence is all that is aimed at, or all for which men are ever prosecuted or convicted, and surely it is a grave reflection on our British courts of justice to suggest for a moment that any man is convicted merely because his opinions are extreme. It is no reflection on the Home Office or on me to suggest that, but it is a very grave reflection on British courts of justice to say that any man is imprisoned for any such reason.
With regard to No. 20, there again there is no question of preventing meetings generally, and any trade union leader can address any meeting in any room at any street corner, or anywhere he likes, but if the meeting happens to be of such a character that it will give rise to grave disorder, and thereby cause undue demands to be made upon the police or military forces, or if the holding of any procession would conduce to a breach of the peace, then it is lawful to stop it. That is not a general power at all, and it is a power which is essential, because it is idle to suggest that any body of persons who want to hold a meeting have a, right to do it in spite of the fact that it will cause such a state of disorder that there is danger that the police and military combined cannot properly deal with it. I am sure no Member of the House would advocate that such liberty should be given to any person or any body of persons in the community. It would not be liberty at all, but pure license of the
worst description, Regulation 22, so far as I recollect, has only been attacked by my hon. and gallant Friend, who is himself in one of the services. You may very well have to carry out not only the preservation of peace, but the preservation of the life of the community, and you may very well require those who carry it out to be protected from disaffected people who would stop it if they could, and, unfortunately, that is no wild imagining on my part. We had in Scotland only yesterday experience of the kind of thing that is already in existence, and may very well grow. We had yester day experience of men going in large bodies—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It has nothing to do with this Regulation I object to No. 22 because it empowers any soldier employed in driving a vehicle to obey any order in connection with it. It extends the Army Act to industrial disputes.

Mr. SHORTT: Had the hon. and gallant Gentleman allowed me to go on, he would have understood what I mean. We saw yesterday men doing that which is vital to the preservation of the mines, and upon which the whole livelihood of the mining population rests. They were prevented from doing so by disorderly mobs headed by local extremists I am told, although I may be wrong, that they had nothing to do with the miners, and certainly not the trade union leaders. You cannot put soldiers to do that work without protecting them, as you would anybody else. It may very well be that civilians dare not do the work, because they are intimidated and have got to live amongst these people when it is all over. It may very well be that they cannot do those essential things because of the attitude of the mob, because of their strength and temper, and you cannot get it done except by trained military men under trained military leaders. It may very well be that the life of the community depends upon the power of using soldiers and sailors to carry out the work. It is as much acting and fighting in the defence of the country as if they were at war with a foreign enemy. I consider the Regulation absolutely essential to the powers which the Government are taking. With regard to No. 23, there again attack has been
made upon that because it makes it an offence to withhold information. It may very well be that withholding information is one of the best possible weapons to defeat the Government in their desire to secure and ration food. If there is a man who refuses to give information, and so defeats the Government's power of rationing and distributing food, is that man to go scot-free? Is he to be entitled to prevent the Government from being able fairly to distribute food which he or his friends have hoarded? That ought to be made a very serious offence, because it might prevent the impartial or fair distribution of such food as we possess, and recollect that if there is hoarding, the men in the trade unions, their wives and families, may suffer just as much as anyone else. Therefore you ought to have powers to force men to disclose hoarding.
With regard to No. 27, my hon. and gallant Friend talks as though it were an absolutely new thing in this country that a constable should be entitled to arrest without warrant. The furthest my memory takes me, so far as my reading is concerned, is the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839, but from that date onwards, at any rate, there have been numbers of Acts of Parliament passed with full knowledge where the power of arrest is given to constables without warrant. I am not surprised that that custom has continued, because very often, especially in a state of emergency, it is absolutely essential that it should be so. With regard to No. 28 (Attempts to Commit Offences), you must punish men who attempt to commit offences, even though they do not succeed. That is part of our criminal procedure, and I do not suppose that objection to that is serious. With regard to harbouring, if it comes to dealing with that Regulation alone, I should be quite prepared to accept an Amendment upon that. I do not attach a great deal of importance to it, because we are dealing with an emergency. We are dealing with a state of things in which it is more essential to stop the evil that is being done than it is to punish the person, and, therefore, if he is being harboured, he is out of harm's way, and there is no danger, and we can let him alone. Therefore, I should be perfectly prepared to accept an Amendment on that. With regard to No. 29, which provides for the closing of
premises, I am not sure that is very essential. At any rate, I should not press it, if the omission of it alone were moved, although it might be useful.
May I, in conclusion, say deliberately that these Regulations have been presented to the House as fully as possible? It is the first series of them that has been presented under the Emergency Powers Act, and, therefore, I am glad the House has had an opportunity of considering a full and complete set of Regulations containing, at any rate, the large majority of powers that are ever likely to be required, and it has given the House an opportunity of discussing them, which I am sure the House will feel has been a matter of very considerable profit. But I must oppose this Amendment as it stands. It would entirely ruin the whole force of the Regulations. It would entirely weaken the hands of the Government, and prevent them from doing that which it is their duty to do. Therefore, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Captain W. BENN: I listened with very great care to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, and I do not think, if I may say so with great respect, that he really defended very effectively the full scope of the Regulations he put before the House. His first point was that this was a temporary set of Regulations which could only last for a very short time, and would have to come under review if it were intended to continue them for a further period; but anyone who reads the Act will see that, so long as the Proclamation is in force, so long are the Regulations in force. So that all that you need to carry on these Regulations for a lengthy period—I do not say an indefinite period—would bt1 for a new Proclamation to be made, and I am not sure whether it is even necessary for this House to vote a humble Address in recognition of the Proclamation. Therefore, once the Regulations are passed by a series of renewed Proclamations, they may, as I read the Act, be kept in force for an indefinite period. It is idle, therefore, to say that the Proclamation only lasts a month or the Regulations only seven days, and the point which the Home Secretary attempted to make that this was quite a temporary set of Regulations for a temporary set of circumstances has not been made. The Home Secretary met objections to these
Regulations one by one by a dual argument. First of all, when he came to one that was difficult, he said that" he had no objection to it being amended, and if he came to others which he could not defend in their wide scope, he gave some individual application, with which we could all agree, without pointing out that it could be used in a much wider fashion, and in a much more objectionable way. As regards No. 16, he said that the Post Office should have power to stop any telegrams. We know perfectly well it could be used to stop the communication of Press messages which appeared to the Government to be harmful or prejudicial. It might be used to prevent communications between trade union leaders in the dispute. The right hon. Gentleman says the truth about it is that they must have this Regulation to prevent betting messages being sent over the wires.

Mr. J. JONES: When there is no racing?

Captain BENN: I have not sufficient knowledge to know whether there is racing or not, but if the Home Secretary wants to prevent betting messages there is nothing in the world to prevent him making a Regulation saying that so long as the emergency exists the telegraphs shall not be burdened with betting messages. But to produce such an argument for these extensive powers is to present an argument to the House which is not likely to commend itself to those who think at all in the matter. Then in regard to Regulation No. 19 (Acts likely to cause sedition, etc.), very wide powers are given to punish people who are likely to cause sedition among the civilian population. I consider these particular words to be most objectionable. What has been said repeatedly by our political opponents about us? That we were stirring up sedition, that we were a band of assassins, and so on. That is the sort of charge constantly made by people on the other side of the House against those on this side. We have been charged with every sort of offence described in this Regulation Does anybody say, therefore, that if these charges are made—and made in perfect good faith, no doubt by Members of the Government—that therefore the persons who made these speeches, by the use of this Regulation, would not come under the powers given by it? Of course they would. If anyone had a grudge he could endeavour to bring those
against him under this Regulation. The Home Secretary says there is nothing new about this, "it is only what we have been doing under D.O.R.A." If he has got the power to do this, what is the need for a new Regulation? Why does he not use the powers of D.O.R.A. instead of coming to this House for powers which absolutely wipe away every one of the liberties of free speech that exists to-day in this country?
Then as to Regulation 20 (Public Meetings and Processions). An Order may be made prohibiting the holding of a meeting or procession which it is apprehended by the authorities may give rise to gravy disorder, or prohibiting the holding of any procession which will conduce to a breach of the peace or promote disaffection. Could words be wider? Could more dangerous powers be given to people who regard the art of Government in the way this Government regard it? Take Regulation 22 (Employment of His Majesty's Forces). This allows the possibility of orders being given to blackleg a strike. That is the purpose of the Regulation. I myself think that it is very unfair to the soldiers. I am not sure that it is not in conflict technically, if not technically at all events in spirit, with the Act itself, which says that
Nothing in this Act shall authorise the making of Regulations imposing any form of industrial conscription.
If this it not a technical contravention of the Act it is so in spirit. It is taking the soldiers and not saying, "Will anyone volunteer to pump the mines"—which is a thing we should all sympathise with—but it is saying to the men of platoons and companies, "Right turn; you are to work the mines or to do any other work which the Home Secretary cares to make you do." This is a Regulation which, I think is in conflict with the original Act, and it is most objectionable. Regulation 23 (Obstruction of Officers) declares that any person who withholds any information in his possession may be punished, and for this the right hon Gentleman's excuse is this: that somebody might be hoarding quantities of food, and that someone knows but will not tell, "And surely," he says, "you will give us power to punish the man who knows for not telling!" But all through the War it was an offence to hoard food.
There was not any Regulation making it an offence to withhold information. Why if it was possible then to discover the hoards of food, when we were in conflict with the Germans, is it not possible to discover now any hoards? Is it because there is a miners' strike? As a matter of fact it is not intended that it shall be so used, because the Home Secretary will have nothing to do with it. It will not be used by jacks-in-office for any such purpose, but it is to punish men who will not give the information which is necessary to enable a particular course to be carried out, and really is a power which I think this House, as the custodian of the liberties of the people, should never dream of granting. We are told there are dozens of Acts of Parliament giving the necessary power. Why not use them? What is the good of bringing in new Regulations if there are dozens of Acts of Parliament which already give the power? Under the Defence of the Realm Act the Home Secretary is fully armed with the power of this Regulation.
Take Regulation 27 (Arrest without warrant, etc.). There is a most objectionable provision as to harbouring. It means that if a woman has a son taking part, say, in some miners' meeting and from which he goes home, and he is supposed to be withholding information about stores of food and his mother puts him into a room and attempts to protect him, she is liable to punishment. The Home Secretary cannot defend that, so he adopts the other attitude, and says, "Very well, I will let it go." In that case why present it to the House of Commons? What did happen when these Regulations were brought forward and what will happen? These Regulations and the Proclamation are brought forward to meet a continued state of emergency. The Home Secretary congratulates the House on the opportunity of debating the whole situation, but is that quite right? If the House had the opportunity of examining these Regulations in detail they would find in many particulars they conferred powers far beyond those that ought to be conferred upon any Government. Those Regulations concerning entering premises at any time are at the root of our difficulties in Ireland—that is, the power of raiding houses. The Home Secretary, intending to secure these things in the face of an opposition which he cannot meet, says:
"Oh, very well, I will let it go." I wonder how many undiscovered objections there are to these Regulations.
Our point of view is this, that the Government's conception of the way to govern the country in these particulars is wrong. They have an enormous Secret Service. They have a great police department which is not aimed at criminals, but politicians of opposite opinions. They have a department which costs four times what the same department cost before the War, and a department which from time to time appears in the Courts in a most unsavoury light. There are the provocative agents they employ, and they issue sheets and forge newspapers for the purposes of propaganda. In Ireland they have applied fully and without any restraint the particular method of government which now they are attempting to introduce into this country. We know exactly what is in their minds. The Prime Minister says, "The time has come when the country is to be divided into two camps"—the Prime Minister and his friends, with Labour on the other side, and there is to be a class war between the two. The Prime Minister is arming himself with the necessary powers to carry out that class war. [An HON. MEMBER: "What are you?"] I am certainly not going to join in a fight against Labour.

Mr. HAILWOOD: The Prime Minister said "the Labour party."

Captain BENN: The Prime Minister is preparing his friends, like the hon. Gentleman who has interrupted once or twice in this Debate, for this war, for he says: "Another 4 per cent, alteration in the Votes and this revolutionary Government will be in power." If that be so, does the House not think that this revolutionary Government will make something of this—the precedent which is being set here to day of arming the Executive with these arbitrary powers?

Mr. JAMESON: I desire—

Mr. STANTON: I have been up five or six times, Mr. Speaker!

Mr. JAMESON: After the very forbearing, patient, and explanatory speech that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, I just rise to make one or two remarks. I think it will be within the purview of this House—and especially my hon. Friend the
Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Stanton), who has been annoyed by something—that the Debate which yesterday and for the first two hours this afternoon, provided the spectacle of the House of Commons at its very best, and of a Debate which, I think, in my experience of the House, has been almost unequalled in tone, temper, and in the usefulness of the speeches delivered, has come to rather a lame and impotent conclusion during the speeches of the last two or three hon. Members.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Including the Home Secretary?

Mr. JAMESON: We seem to have taken a plunge into a region or atmosphere of party recriminations which at any moment like the present one must very gravely deplore. It stands out in marked contrast with the tone and temper of the speeches yesterday and the first two hours of this afternoon. I suppose it was inevitable that hon. Members opposite should make this demonstration in favour of the liberty of the subject, especially the hon. and gallant Member for Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), that he should try to make his case by talking about brutality, military tyranny, and the horrible forced labour. He is supposed to be an advocate and admirer of the Soviet Government. I hope he will indicate his preference in favour of freedom of speech and liberty of the subject to Messrs. Trotsky and Lenin. We on this side of the House are particularly concerned with the vindication of the liberty of the subject. There is, however, one fundamental condition necessary for the establishment and protection of the liberty of the subject, and that one thing, the basis on which the liberty of the subject is absolutely founded, is that of law and order. Without law and order, and the proper protection of the subject, you can have no liberty at all. We sincerely hope there will not be occasion for calling in extra munitions to defend law and order in this country, but we are bound to take precautions, bearing in mind above all things the sacredness of property and the liberty of the subject. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hull spoke against this bullying on the part of the Government, and said that we wanted to protect the subject from bullying on the part of unauthorised people.
What I rise to impress on the Government is the overwhelming necessity at this grave moment, if the strike spreads and the worst happens, that under these deplorable conditions every measure will be taken to prevent anarchy and disorder and to maintain law and order in this country. The Home Secretary said it was to be hoped that the necessity for calling into play these Regulations would not occur, but there is always a danger. We have seen in the last three days mobbing and rioting in a part of the country which possesses a very God-fearing population as a rule, and yet even there you had mobbing and rioting, interference with property and interference with the police in the execution of their duty, and the preventing of people from working who were willing to work to save the vital property of the subjects of the nation and to save the pits from being flooded and the ponies down the pits from being destroyed. [Hew. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] At any rate, a great many of the ponies were drowned. When we see these things occurring we hope that nothing of the sort will occur again. Nevertheless, we cannot afford to neglect precautions.
A leader of the transport workers advocated the other day that if the transport workers came out on strike, which I hope they will not, they should violently interfere with other people who assist in the transport work of the country. There is a direct counsel to intimidation, terrorism, and crime. We are bound to guard against such action as that being taken, and therefore Section 19 particularly is absolutely necessary in order to secure that food shall be brought to the mouths of the "people, and that a proper supply of food, water and fuel and all the other necessities of life shall be safeguarded. I do not want to go through in detail the points which have been so adequately dealt with by the Home Secretary. It has always been contended that a state of war justifies these things, and I am bound to say that there have been hints of a sort of state of war that is industrial war being declared in this country. Many people are talking about industrial war, and a condition of things like that must mean very wide powers in order to maintain law and order. We hope it is not necessary, and we must
trust the Government to act in a reasonable way when putting these Regulations into practice.
Matters like the inciting to mobbing and rioting and crime ought to be treated with very great circumspection and delicacy by the authorities. I have no doubt that all these powers are vitally necessary, but the appeal I make to the Government is to act reasonably in regard to these powers. I wave aside the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Monmouthshire that the imposition of these Regulations would embitter feeling and would get upon the nerves of the other side, because there is no reason why they should. The Government have always taken up a most conciliatory and patient attitude, and they have done nothing to ruffle the most delicate and the most sensitive trade unionists. We are bound, however, to take precautions to see that the vital interests of property and of liberty should be protected, and to see that our food, and water, and other necessities of life, are supplied to the people. Accordingly these Regulations, so far from being harsh, are merciful, and so far from being an infringement of the liberty of the subject they are the establishment of the very foundations upon which, in a crisis, the liberty of the subject must rest.

Mr. CLYNES: I observe that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down concluded his speech by saying that hon. Members who preceded him had rather lowered the tone of the Debate. Perhaps he will forgive me saying that I fear that even he has failed to raise that tone. I will refer later to one or two of his points in regard to certain of these Regulations. First, let me offer a comment as to the title of the document which the House is being asked to consider. With some little experience of Acts of Parliament, I cannot recall any measure submitted to this House which so completely and in such a comprehensive way and so vitally affects the general freedom of the body of the people of this country as the document which is now before us. These Regulations are not even classified as a Bill. Let hon. Members read any of these separate paragraphs, and they will at once see how the freedom of the masses of the people is affected. Taking them collectively, I
say that if they were put into force and the final representatives of the law, as embodied in the person of the policeman and the soldier, were to try to enforce these Regulations against the individuals of this country, it would be impossible for any one of us to move. Everything that men may be disposed to say or do, every utterance and every act could be brought within the ambit of the terms of these Regulations, and could be dealt with as a serious violation of the law That means that hon. Members are great lovers of liberty so long as other people do as they do, but if people act in a contrary sense, the contention is that British freedom and liberty disappear.
I want seriously to ask one or two questions. What are the grounds and experience on which these Regulations have been submitted to the House? Upon what is the fear built which has bred these Regulations? Law, in general, emerges from a set of experiences. In what way has the conduct of trade unions in recent years been different from the conduct in previous years. We are happy in the fact that in spite of recurring serious industrial quarrels in this country they have been uniformly conducted in a spirit of fairness, observing not merely conditions of law, but the general conditions of decency and habits of the British people. I ask the Home Secretary to tell us what is the experience, the justification, or fears which have caused these Regulations to be submitted? There may be one ground, and I can think only of one, which forms any justification whatever for the fears which must be behind these Regulations. The Government must be in dread of some departure from the usual British habit of respecting fully life, property and liberty within these islands.
7.0 P.M.
There seems some justification for that, and the Government might well turn its eyes to its own example. I firmly believe that there is a reduction in recent years in this country in what might be termed the respect of the Britisher for life and property. Let us face that fact. A Government which adopts and pursues in one part of the British Isles deliberately and which approves as part of its policy the destroying of property, the burning of creameries and setting fire to public buildings and private houses—a Government which sanctions or winks at that kind of thing being done in one part of
the country cannot absolutely liberate itself from the fear of that sort of thing being imitated, during times of high tension, in other parts of the country. As far as I can see, that is the only ground of fear that can exist in regard to the necessity for Regulations of this kind. I turn now to the appeal which has been made to the right hon. Gentleman to consider the inopportuneness at this moment for pressing these Regulations. The House was able to receive to-day with a sense of relief an intimation that steps are being taken to cause a discussion of the differences which have occasioned the stoppage in the coal trade. Notwithstanding some other decisions which may yet have to be confirmed or further considered, as I understand, to-morrow, I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that to press provisions of this kind through the House at this moment will tend to embitter the situation. It will make it difficult for those who are appealing for moderation, and for measures of calmness and reason amongst thousands of men. It will make it difficult for that appeal to be effective if these men can turn round and say that the Government clearly is making every preparation to apply the fullest measure of force which the soldier and the policeman can express, and that therefore they can have little regard for the ordinary observances of our traditional way of conducting trade disputes. It will be a great contribution to an amicable settlement of this dispute, and it will help to produce the atmosphere without which it is impossible to have calm and reasoned discussion, if the Government recognise the fact that the two parties are perhaps at this moment together, and if it can be made known in the country to-morrow that this step is taken by the Government in the hope that that atmosphere will be produced. It would be far better as an act of statesmanship than to force these Regulations through by the mere weight of a Parliamentary majority.
If that view cannot be taken, I want to press a very serious objection to one of the Regulations, namely, that which deals with the position of the soldier and sailor. These men joined for soldiers' and sailors' work. They did not join to become the Instruments of the Government, or perhaps of a body of employers in connection
with the conduct of a trade dispute. In other words, they did not join to become blacklegs upon compulsion. That is what these Regulations would compel them to become. The men in the Army, as in the Navy, are very often members of a trade union or belong to families which include trade unionists—their brothers or fathers may be trade unionists, and they do not like some of the dirty work to which they are sometimes put. I grant to the full that it is the business of the Government to use the forces of the Crown to maintain law and order. I grant that it may in certain circumstances be necessary to use the forces of the Crown to protect other workmen carrying out absolutely essential duties. Here, however, is a Regulation permitting the authorities, whoever they may be, to tell the soldier or the sailor virtually to change his occupation whilst staying in his uniform, and to turn to the work of a workman instead of that of a soldier or a sailor. That really is carrying the powers of the Government too far; it is making a mock of other parts of the Regulations which say that a man has a perfect right to take part in a strike, or a trade dispute. What part can a man take in a trade dispute or a strike if all the other parts of these Regulations are to be applied toward making him absolutely helpless and to preventing him from doing anything whatever in furtherance of that strike or trade dispute? We ought not to anticipate that there will be violence or outrage or destruction either to life or to property.

Captain STANLEY WILSON: There have been already.

Mr. CLYNES: Admittedly, there have not been. The law, as it now is, gives the fullest power to the Government to deal with any cases of violence or disorder; they are dealt with every day. These Regulations are designed to deal with organised labour. It is open, of course, to any hon. Member to say that these Regulations may just as well apply to employers, but the most ingenious hon. Member will find some difficulty in giving to the House any single illustration of how at any time it will be possible to apply these Regulations to the general body of mineowners. Yet this general body of mineowners are giving the men the notices which are the cause of this
stoppage. I suggest that there is sufficient power at present invested in the law to deal with any present or prospective outrage, either against life or property. These Regulations are so comprehensive and so one-sided as to make it possible for the Government to prevent a trade unionist in any sense exercising his functions as an organised workman and acting with his fellows for any purpose of conducting a trade dispute. I would ask the Home Secretary, in view of what has occurred to-day, and of the fact that the parties may now or very shortly be brought together, whether it would not be worth while, and a Very real contribution to an improved atmosphere tending towards calmness and settlement, for the Government to recognise the changes of the day and not to press these Regulations on the House?

Mr. SEXTON: I will not say that the Government have deliberately framed these Regulations with any hostile intentions against trade unions, but I am afraid that in his anxiety for their correct legal phraseology, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has lost sight of the extent to which they may be put, even though he himself may carefully guard against that being done. I want to give one case. Regulation 20 says:
Where there appears to be reason to apprehend that the assembly of any persons for the purpose of the holding of any meeting will give rise to grave disorder, and will thereby cause undue demands to be made upon the police or military forces.
The right hon. Gentleman, in his wide experience, has surely learned the fact hat whenever a trade dispute occurs in any locality and meetings are held, undue demands are always made upon the police. I have never yet seen any trade dispute, while the dispute has been cm and we have been holding meetings in the hall, in which there has not been a force of police—particularly in Liverpool—specially called upon, and specially housed in such buildings as St. George's Hall in anticipation of the result of a meeting held in a particular place. Therefore, under that part of the Regulation, if a meeting is called for the purpose of organising a dispute, and the dispute is in existence, and an undue call would be made on an extra force of police, the calling of that meeting which would bring about the undue call is liable to be
prohibited, and will be an offence against the Regulations. Regulation 20 goes on to say:
It shall be lawful for a Secretary of State, or for any mayor, magistrate, or chief officer of police … to make an order prohibiting the holding of a meeting
which is liable to cause disaffection amongst the members of the ordinary population. Did the right hon. Gentleman ever know a meeting held to give advice to trade unionists in districts that was not likely to cause disaffection? This places me in this awkward position. I have not long come from a conference. That conference has virtually decided—by sheer force of circumstances it has been forced to do so—to recognise, rightly or wrongly—rightly, in my opinion—that the attack made upon the National Wages Board of the Miners' Federation is also an attack upon the principle of our National Wages Board. I am leaving altogether on one side the question of whether or not there is to be a subsidy. I am not concerned about that. What I am concerned about is that we have fought for 25 years for the creation of a National Wages Board, so that one Board should not be used against the other. We have established that Board; we have got uniformity. It is now threatened, nay, it is more than threatened. We have had cases to-day where individual employers have put up notices ignoring the existence of our National Wages Board. In view of what has happened to the miners, they have taken advantage of that to state that next Tuesday, if we do not go back to pre-war conditions of hours of labour, they will tie up and shut up their works. Let me ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary this question. I happen to be a magistrate. Would it be in order, and would the Home Secretary ratify what I did, if I wished to take proceedings against those employers who deliberately and wilfully delayed the distribution of food? What is sauce for the goose is surely equally ditto for the gander. If I dared to do any such thing I should be like a voice crying in the wilderness. We cannot even hold a procession.
I hope no hon. Member of this House will accuse me of being too anxious to enter into trade disputes. If I have sinned at all it has usually been on the side of caution. I plead guilty to the soft impeachment, but there are times in
the history and the lifetime of even the most cautious when sheer force of circum stances compels him, in self-respect, to make a protest and to put up a fight. It may be possible, and it may be probable and necessary for me, at the end of this week, to call a huge meeting in Liver pool. I hope not. I hope the necessity will never arise; I hope that the steps taken to-day will be fruitful of good results. No one wishes that more than I do. But if it conies to the worst I am bound to call members of my organisation together. I am bound to tell them at a meeting neither to touch, taste nor handle, figuratively speaking, anything that will impede the possible chances of the miners succeeding in preserving their National Wages Board. Under these Regulations that might be construed into an offence because I am talking disaffection to the members of my own union. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider the effect of these Regulations. I may be told that I am playing into the hands of the extremists. Are we always to be baulked by a fear of playing into the hands of those people? Nobody detests extreme measures more than I do. At times, however, extreme measures are necessary, and if the time comes—I hope it will not—at the end of this month for taking them, then, in spite of these Regulations and in spite of the penalty to which I may subject myself, I may have to speak words of disaffection to the members of my organisation, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that all the Regulations he or this House can make will not prevent me doing what I consider to be my duty. Even the employés of a municipality, the men employed in the waterworks and the gasworks, will be unable to attend meetings which might advocate action that would prevent the distribution of water or gas.
How can they enter into any dispute without bringing themselves within the four walls of these Regulations? They are rendered absolutely powerless. They are supposed to have the protection of the Trade Disputes Act, but the virtue of that Act is absolutely wiped away by these Regulations. If we do not attempt to organise effectively a strike cannot be successful. We are to be bound hand and foot by the Regulations, one of which empowers a police officer to go; into a meeting that is being held and
to attempt to disperse and break it up. I would be sorry for any body of police who tried that at a meeting of my organisation. It would want more than a force of policemen to do that, and, instead of keeping the peace, it would simply intensify the disaffection. Having made this protest I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be desirable to adopt some other phraseology in the Regulations, as otherwise they will only cause disaffection and disturbance to such an extent as will force him to realise the necessity for changing them.

Mr. LAWSON: It is somewhat of a tribute to the peaceful spirit and goodwill of the British miner that there should be so much surprise that in one area alone there has been a certain amount of trouble. You have a million miners out of work under the most trying conditions, yet there is great consternation because, in one area, trouble has arisen. I noticed on Monday when I returned to London there were great headlines on the newspaper contents bills which seem to have affected even Members of this House. They surprised me very much indeed. One newspaper declared that the miners were "getting angry." Yet when I came away from a mining village I left the miners attending to their gardens and taking part in ordinary peaceful avocations, and certainly there was nothing of the feeling which some newspapers seemed to suggest. That kind of fear must have affected the Government; otherwise I do not imagine they would have felt bound to seek these emergency powers, and to put in force Regulations of the kind here laid down. The Home Secretary told us that the Regulations will not have any effect upon the people unless the tenor of them is misrepresented. He made a very great point of that, but I would like to point out that in issuing these Regulations the Government are usurping the functions of the people who have hitherto kept the peace. That has in the past been done by the Standing Joint Committees, but the right hon. Gentleman now tells those bodies that he has no use for them.
Hitherto the Standing Joint Committee has been the chief authority in a given area. I have seen strikes after strikes carried on under the most bitter circum-
stances. I remember one which lasted for three months, and when, if ever there was a reason for an upheaval of strife and bitterness, it there existed. But the men of local influence in the area, have always co-operated with the local police authorities in maintaining peace, and hitherto they have succeeded. What is going to be the case in the future? I am a member of a Standing Joint Committee of a Labour Council. I would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman what has been his attitude with regard to bodies of this nature. Long before we had these Regulations the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Government was to take away from the local councils power over the police and over many other things. The attitude of the Government, the attitude of the very gentlemen who have done a great deal to create democratic sentiment, has been to distrust that democratic sentiment and the people generally. Instead of having faith in the principles for which they stood in the past—the principles of trusting the people to be wise enough and sane enough to carry them into operation, he puts these Regulations into force. Who is he going to depend upon to enforce them? He is not going to get men of local influence to co-operate in the maintenance of peace as in the past. The Government will learn very soon that trust in the people in local areas will be of far more value than trust in the police and secret service agents, or in the Army and Navy. They will learn very soon that whereas the people have maintained a good spirit, have kept themselves in good humour under the principle of trusting the people, that spirit will no longer operate in actual practice.
Look at Regulation 20, which gives power of interference with any assembly of persons for a purpose calculated to give rise to disorder or disaffection, and which authorises the duly constituted authority to prevent the holding of such meeting, or of any procession. It is laid down that it shall be lawful for the Secretary of State, for a magistrate, or for the Chief of the Police duly authorised, to take such steps as may be necessary to disperse the meeting or procession, or to prevent the holding
thereof, and it gives the authorities right of access to meetings of all kinds and power to break up those meetings. But who is the Secretary of State going to depend upon for information as to the nature of these meetings? I think I know. Take such an area as I come from. It has always been a peaceable area. I can go back for many years to many strikes, and with a single exception under very difficult circumstances, there has been no case of disorder worth mentioning. I can imagine that that area is going to be filled with the agents of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. They have been put upon the pay roll of this House and something must be found for them to do. You will find various areas filled with these gentlemen nosing into people's affairs and making inquiries of all kinds into the activities of certain individuals and organisations. I want to tell the right hon. Gentleman that the area from which I come is one which will resist such methods as that. If he is going to depend on this type of individual for information, I can assure him that even in the most remote villages of the area with which I am acquainted the inhabitants are just the type of people who will be irritated by such action, and individuals of that kind.
These Regulations will in themselves cause distrust, not because they are misunderstood, but because they are only too well understood. It is because we do not want to see that kind of thing occur, or to be placed in impossible circumstances for maintaining good order, good will, and good humour, that we protest against such Regulations. There might well be some spirit of bitterness; the wonder is that there is not more. I wonder if the House knows the fact that I am about to state. We have been told that we ought to accept district boards. Certain proposals were made in London, and I noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer very discreetly kept off this question yesterday. He said, "Yes, there is an exception in the case of Nottingham and Durham," but he did not tell the House that a proposal was laid down here in London as to the principle and method of settling the district rate, but that when they got back there was a difference of 60 per cent, from the offer that had been made here. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that
very well. Whereas the offer was something like 216 per cent, upon the 1879 basis, when they got down there it meant 155 per cent. What does that mean? It means that the owners know very well that, once they get us on to individual ground, they will be able to deal with us at their own price; it is a case of dividing and ruling. When incidents of that kind occur, one wonders that there is not more bitterness than prevails at the present time. We do not wish for anything of that kind. We have always said—the man in the street says—in our area, that the man who proposes physical force is usually the man who is not there when operations begin. We have no love for the individual who proposes violent methods, and I should be inclined to trust the common sense of the people themselves to deal with individuals of that kind. It is true that you have, as has been pointed out, the isolated instance, but even in that case I should say that the balance will soon be regained. It would be interesting to know what were the circumstances in that particular area.
It has been said that these Regulations give powers which would be very valuable if Labour were in office, that is to say, they give power to take over land and railways and so on. I am not prepared, however, even as one who believes in the collective ownership of great monopolies of that kind, to barter the old principle of trusting democracy to settle matters by democratic vote, for the Soviet system, which, as it seems to me, has been accepted by the Government in the Regulations laid down on this point. Anything in that direction gives a very poor return for the departure from the old traditions of British liberty, and of trusting the people in the area to do their own work and maintain the peace and goodwill that has hitherto prevailed, even under the most stressful circumstances. I should like to reinforce the suggestions that have been made from this side, in the atmosphere that is now prevailing and amidst the strenuous attempts to bring this regrettable crisis to an end and place us upon something like a permanent footing in industrial and commercial affairs in this country. I should like to ask if it is not possible to postpone the application of these Regulations. We know what is going to be their effect upon people who do not want at any time to take part in scenes
that they may regret in times to come. The very passing of these Regulations is going to have that effect, and so I would ask if something cannot be done to post pone their application, in order to maintain a decent spirit and bring matters to a successful issue.

Mr. SHORTT: May I appeal to the House now to come to a decision?

Question put, "That the words, 'other than Regulations 6, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 28 and 29' be there inserted."

The House divided: Ayes, 69; Noes, 285,

Division No. 60.]
AYES.
[7.38 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Hartshorn, Vernon
Robertson, John


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayday, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayward, Major Evan
Royce, William Stapleton


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Sexton, James


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Spencer, George A.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Holmes, J. Stanley
Swan, J. E.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Irving, Dan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cairns, John
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Cape, Thomas
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thone, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clltheroe)
Kenyon, Barnet
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)
Lawson, John J.
Waterson, A. E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Myers, Thomas
Wignall, James


Finney, Samuel
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Galbralth, Samuel
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Gillis, William
O'Grady, Captain James
Wintringham, T.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Raffan, Peter Wilson



Grundy, T. W.
Rendall, Athelstan
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Frederick Hall.


NOES.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Glyn, Major Ralph


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gould, James C.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Greer, Harry


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Greig, Colonel James William


Barnett, Major R. W.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Gretton, Colonel John


Barnston, Major Harry
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Barrle, Charles Coupar
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Hailwood, Augustine


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart. (Gr'nw'h)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bigland, Alfred
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C (Kent)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)


Blair, Sir Reginald
Edgar, Clinord B.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Edge, Captain William
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Elveden, Viscount
Higham, Charles Frederick


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Cilve
Entwlstle, Major C. F.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Briggs, Harold
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Britton, G. B.
Farquharson, Major A. C.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Fell, Sir Arthur
Hood, Joseph


Brown, Captain D. C.
Flides, Henry
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Hopkins, John W. W.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
FltzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Flannery, sir James Fortescue
Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)


Butcher, Sir John George
Foreman, Sir Henry
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Forestier-Walker, L.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere


Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Casey, T. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Gange, E. Stanley
Hurd, Percy A.


Cecil. Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Ganzonl, Captain Sir F. J. C.
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Gardiner, James
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Geddes, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Camb'dge)
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Jameson, J. Gordon


Clough, Robert
Gilbert, James Daniel
Johnstone, Joseph


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke NewIngton)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Stanton, Charles B.


Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Kidd, James
Parker, James
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Stevens, Marshall


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Pearce, Sir William
Stewart, Gershom


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Sturrock, J. Leng


Lindsay, William Arthur
Perring, William George
Sutherland, Sir William


Lloyd, George Butler
Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Taylor, J.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.
Terrell, George (Wilts, Chippenham)


Lonsdale, James Rolston
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Lorden, John William
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Poison, Sir Thomas
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Lowther, Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Townley, Maximilian G.


Lynn, R. J.
Pratt, John William
Townshend, Sir Charles Vere Ferrers


M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Prescott, Major W. H.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Vickers, Douglas


McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Purchase, H. G.
Waddington, R.


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Wallace, J.


McMlcking, Major Gilbert
Randles, Sir John S.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Raper, A. Baldwin
Waring, Major Walter


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Magnus, Sir Philip
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple)
Weston, Colonel John W.


Mallalieu, F. W.
Reid, D. D.
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Richardson, Sir Albion (Camberweil)
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Manville, Edward
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Whitla, Sir William


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Martin, Captain A. E.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Mildmay, Colonel Rt. Hon. F. B.
Rodger, A. K.
Wilson, Capt. A. S. (Holderness)


Mitchell, William Lane
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Moles, Thomas
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wise, Frederick


Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Morden, Lieut.-Col. W. Grant
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Woolcock, William James U.


Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Morrison, Hugh
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Scott, Leslie (Liverpool Exchange)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Seager, Sir William
Younger, Sir George


Nail, Major Joseph
Seddon, J. A.



Neal, Arthur
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley


Newton, Major Harry Kottingham
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)
Ward.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "and subject also, (a) to the omission in Regulation 6 of the words from '1903' to the end of the Regulation, and (b) to the omission in Regulation 28 of the words from 'thereunder,' where it first occurs, to 'shall,' and (c) to the omission of Regulation 29."
This simply carries out the undertaking which I gave.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to thank the Home Secretary.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under The Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 1st April, 1921, shall continue in force, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act,
and subject also, (a) to the omission in Regulation 6 of the words from '1903' to the end of the Regulation, and (b) to the omission in Regulation 28 of the words from 'thereunder' where it first occurs to 'shall,' and (c) to the omission of Regulation 29."

The PRIME MINISTER: Earlier in the course of the proceedings, I reported to the House the letters which I had received from the Miners' Federation and the Mineowners' Association, and I think the House was pleased with the prospect those letters indicated of the parties coming together with a view to resuming negotiations. Last night I stated the conditions under which alone negotiations would be possible, and I think the House was in general agreement with those conditions. One of them was, that
necessary steps should be taken by the Miners' Federation to resume pumping and prevent the destruction of the mines, and there was a condition with regard to pit ponies. I very much regret to say that a hitch has occurred, owing to a decision come to by the Miners' Federation, which makes it quite impossible for negotiations to be resumed unless this obstacle can be overcome. The Miners' Federation have just communicated to me that they cannot see their way to give instructions to the pumpmen to resume work during the negotiations. I should like to appeal to hon. Members and more especially to those who represent the miners, to exercise their influence to induce the Miners' Federation to reconsider that decision. It may be due to some misunderstanding with regard to the conditions under which the pumpmen would resume work. Naturally, they would resume work on the status quo, which means at the wages which were paid before the dispute, without prejudice, of course, to the general question of wages. I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding in regard to that. They are not asked to undertake the task of pumping under the new conditions or the new wages which have been offered. They will be paid the old rate of wages, without prejudice to the discussions which take place.
I therefore appeal very earnestly, more especially to hon. Members who represent the miners, and through them to the Miners' Federation, to reconsider the very serious decision which they have come to. It is obviously impossible for the mine owners or for the Government to undertake to go into discussions, which are bound to take some time because they involve the settlement of the whole mining industry, whilst the mines are being flooded. The mine owners would naturally have their anxieties in that respect, and it does not produce the necessary atmosphere which is so essential in negotiation. Many of the mines have been very seriously damaged already. Our reports from other parts of the country are that other mines are in course of suffering very serious impairment. The officials are doing their best. In some cases they have been interfered with, and seriously interfered with. After all, what we suggested last night was rather a truce
with a view to discussion. That is not a truce. The mine owners are not cancelling any decision they came to; they are simply resuming negotiations. I very much deplore the men's decision, but I am not discussing it now. It was one which had reference to the breaking of negotiations. Negotiations are now about to be resumed, therefore there is nothing that is derogatory to their dignity during the time the negotiations are proceeding in giving instructions that the pumpmen shall resume work, so that at any rate at the end of the period the mines will be there for them, for the mine owners, and for the nation. They must realise that it is better from every point of view, and certainly from the point of view of getting a friendly discussion and a friendly atmosphere in the Council Chamber and outside, that they should undertake this duty upon conditions which are not in the least derogatory. I appeal in all earnestness to them to re-consider their decision. I have done my best to secure the attendance of the Miners' Federation to-night, but I am very sorry they have dispersed. To-morrow morning I hope to meet them, when I shall certainly make this appeal to them.

Mr. S. WALSH: The executive committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. I should like to meet the executive committee, and to put this before them; but it would be quite impossible to have negotiations whilst the mines are gradually crumbling owing to the difficulties of keeping them from being flooded.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I think the House will appreciate the Prime Minister's action in taking the House and the country fully into his confidence in this matter, and equally I have no hesitation in saying that hon. Members in all parts of the House will appreciate the fact that a genuine effort to bring the parties together was made by the right hon. Gentleman. I deplore the fact that the notices were given to the pumpmen by the owners, and I equally deplore the fact that the men were withdrawn. A request is now made by the Prime Minister, as I understand it, on this basis, that at least, if success is to come from these negotiations, the right atmosphere must be created. I gather that is exactly what he wants. All I can say at
this stage is that I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House will keep clearly in mind that the first essential at this moment is to bring both parties together, and if anything can be done to remove any difficulty whatever—it may be this or any other—I am sure we must all contribute our bit towards that end.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: Am I to understand from what the Prime Minister has said that this is to be taken by the Miners' Executive and the mine owners as a refusal on the part of the employers to meet the Miners' Executive to-morrow?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not a condition of the owners. It is a condition that the Government laid down last night before the owners ever wrote their letter. The hon. Member will find it in the OFFICIAL KEPORT. It was the last condition I laid down on behalf of the Government—that it was essential, if we were to have negotiations, and if the Government were to offer their good offices in order to secure a discussion, that the pumpmen should resume work. I think the condition about the pit ponies has been arranged.

Mr. GRAHAM: I do not accept that statement. The only two essential conditions laid down by the Prime Minister last night—

The PRIME MINISTER: Get the OFFICIAL REPORT.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, get the OFFICIAL REPORT, and when you get it you will find that the two conditions laid down were that the subsidy should be withdrawn, and that there should be no control. The Miners' Executive were prepared to meet the employers with the Government representatives at any time; but they are not prepared to be told by the employers that they must discuss something other than the question of the real differences between the miners and the employers at the moment. With respect to the question of the ponies, I want again to remind the House that we gave ample time for the ponies to be withdrawn, and if there are any ponies in the pits at the moment in danger of being starved or drowned, the employers have deliberately allowed them to remain there for the express purpose of arousing public feeling against the miners. With regard to the pumps—

The PRIME MINISTER: May I just interrupt the hon. Gentleman for a moment. He challenged the statement I made that last night I laid down as a condition that the Miners' Federation should give every assistance in saving the mines. I will just read the passage:
It is essential that the Miners' Federation should give every facility and assistance to prevent the pits from being destroyed and also to save the lives of those poor dumb animals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1921; col. 235, Vol. 140.]
Those are the two conditions.

Mr. GRAHAM: I submit those are not the conditions. It would be a mistake for the Prime Minister or any Member of this House to imagine that the miners are not as much interested in maintaining the industry as the employers are. We have no desire to see pits being ruined. As a matter of fact, our livelihood depends upon the collieries, the employers' livelihood does not. The majority of the employers have more money invested in undertakings from which they can derive great profit from low-priced coal than they have in the coal-mining industry. Most of them are iron and steel owners, railway directors, shipbuilders, and shipowners. Their money is invested in all forms of industrial undertakings, and it makes no difference to them whether the pits are destroyed or not. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Let me qualify that. It is not of as much importance to them as to the miner. The miner depends entirely upon the livelihood he can extract from the coal mines and the employer does not, and it is not good enough for the Prime Minister or anybody else to suggest that the miners are careless of the well-being of the pit itself. They are not. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the condition?"] It was not a condition at all. We are prepared, however, to meet the, employers under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister or any representative of the Government and to put our case fairly and squarely before any unbiased individual or the whole public if we get a fair show. We have not got it up to the present time. We are not prepared, and more than that I want to say we have not got the power—the Members of the Labour party who are miners did not give any undertaking that they would be prepared—to withdraw the particular instruction which has been sent out and accepted by
the Miners' Federation. I want further to say it is no good for the Prime Minister to suggest the same wages as last week. Pay the wages to the whole of the men, give as a national agreement, and we ate prepared to resume work. You have not offered that; you want us to agree to allow individuals to be employed to defeat us, and at the end, when we are defeated, these 'men are to go to the conditions under which they would be working if there had been no stoppage. That is not quite fair. We want a fair and reasonable spirit created and a good atmosphere. We quite realise we cannot get our own way all the time. If you people on the other side cannot realise that we can. If our case is not fair and honest, then we will have to accept something other than the claim we put forward. If it is fair and honest, we want to get fair and honest treatment. The pumpman going back on the old wages is certainly not the status quo. The status quo is all the men going back on the old wages, and we are quite prepared to consider that suggestion if the Prime Minister is prepared to offer it. He wants to be clear of any responsibility. All the advantages are to be on your side, all the disadvantages on ours. I will be quite frank with you, we are not going to have that. I am a miner and I am not prepared to accept the conditions and I will fight as long as I possibly can against it and I will urge everybody belonging to my occupation—notwithstanding your Regulations—to fight as bitterly as they possibly can against any attempt to force us back into 1914 conditions. We are quite prepared t6 meet the Prime Minister, as I have already said, at 11 o'clock to-morrow morning and if he is not prepared to accept this, then it can go on as it is. We have been asked to meet him and we agreed to meet him, but the employers have laid down conditions which you have not told the House and we refuse to accept those conditions. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] The conditions were that work should be resumed so far as enginemen and pumpmen were concerned. We will not have it. We are appealing for a spirit of fair play; if there is any fair play amongst the Members of this House. It is not unreasonable surely to ask officers and gentlemen to be fair and that is all we are asking up to the
moment. We have not got it. We are laying down no conditions and we are not accepting the conditions laid down to us.

Mr. CLYNES: I am sorry I was not in the House to hear more than the concluding words of the Prime Minister. I quite well understand the warm feeling which has prompted the comments of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. D. Graham), but I may submit to him that they properly and fairly would form the subject of discussion between the parties when the parties are brought together. I rise to ask the Prime Minister a question. I well remember the Prime Minister's reference last night to the question of the pumpmen and enginemen and the impression left upon my mind was that the working of the pumps and engines should be a subject of first discussion when the parties were got together, and that everything should be done to arrange if possible a settlement of that question before proceeding with the other larger issues. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether we are to understand now that he lays down as a condition that before he takes a part in bringing the parties together and causing a discussion of the general question at issue such as the national agreement and the amount of wages and so on, he insists that the men must consent to resume work at the pumps and engines?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think I made it quite clear last night, and if my right hon. Friend will be good enough to refresh his memory by the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) and I both regarded it as an absolutely essential preliminary condition to any negotiations that the pumping should be resumed. As I have already stated, I was hoping to meet the Miners' Executive to-night and talk the matter over. I cannot believe that this represents their final determination, that whilst meeting at the table to discuss a national settlement of wages that the mines should be gradually destroyed. I again ask for the good offices of my right hon. Friend, and all those who are associated with him, to induce the Miners' Executive to reconsider this decision to the extent, at any rate, of resuming pumping operations whilst negotiations are going on. That is not an unreason-
able request. I am quite prepared to meet the Miners' Executive to discuss that matter, but there is nothing to discuss between them and the owners on that—it is purely a question whether they will resume pumping or not.

Mr. CLYNES: I am glad to have that description from the Prime Minister of what was in his mind last night, and he can be assured he has the good will of all of us in the step he will take to-morrow in meeting the members of the Miners' Federation.

Mr. S. WALSH: Members of this House have the right to quote the OFFICIAL REPORT fully. Here are the words of the right hon. Gentleman:
We must make it clear that we could not enter into any negotiations on any expectation that we could recommend to Parliament the maintenance of this industry out of the general taxation of the country. We could not enter into any discussion upon the assumption that it would be possible to resume control of the industry. With these two limitations there is a very wide field for discussion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th April, 1921; col. 235, Vol. 140.]
Those are the only two limitations. The whole context of all the previous remarks is that with these two limitations there is a very wide field for discussion, and when the right hon. Gentleman is bringing a force into the latter part of his speech, which he certainly did not put in last night, he is simply helping to smash all possibility of negotiations. Why can-

not these people come together? Why cannot the Government, which has responsibilities greater than anybody, bring them together? After all, if the plea is urged, as it may be urged with some force, that property is being impaired, are not children's lives being impaired? Are not the homes of the people being impaired? Let us go straight back to the status quo ante. If there is to be a fair deal, an honest negotiation, let us revert to the condition of things that existed before the dispute commenced.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN (Leader of the House): rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. WALSH: If you say "Save the property of the owners, but let the lives of the children go," then that is not a condition which anyone accepts.

Question put,
That the Regulations made by His Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, by Order dated the 1st April, 1921, shall continue in force, subject however to the provisions of Section 2 (4) of the said Act, and subject also (a) to the omission in Regulation 6 of the words from '1903' to the end of the Regulation, and (b) to the omission in Regulation 28 of the words from 'thereunder,' where it first occurs, to 'shall,' and (c) to the omission of Regulation 29.

The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 60.

Division No. 61.]
AYES.
[8.17 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, Sir David Sanders (Denbigh)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Butcher, Sir John George
Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withington)
Edgar, Clifford B.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Casey, T. W.
Edge, Captain William


Barnett, Major R. W.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)


Barnston, Major Harry
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Elveden, Viscount


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm., W.)
Entwistle, Major C. F.


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill
Farquharson, Major A. C.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Fell, Sir Arthur


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)
Clough, Robert
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Betterton, Henry B.
Coates, Major Sir Edward f.
FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.


Bigland, Alfred
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foreman, Sir Henry


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beals
Forestier-Walker, L.


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
France, Gerald Ashburner


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Fraser, Major Sir Keith


Blair, Sir Reginald
Cory, Sir C. J. (Cornwall, St. Ives)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Gange, E. Stanley


Bowles, Colonel H. F.
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Ganzoni, Captain Sir F. J. C.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gardiner, James


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd


Briggs, Harold
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Gilbert, James Daniel


Brittain, Sir Harry
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Glyn, Major Ralph


Britton, G. B.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Greer, Harry


Greig, Colonel James William
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Mallalieu, F. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Manville, Edward
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Hailwood, Augustine
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Martin, Captain A. E.
Seager, Sir William


Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Meysey-Thompson, Lieut.-Col. E. C.
Seddon, J. A.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Middlebrook, Sir William
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Mitchell, William Lane
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Smith, Sir Harold (Warrington)


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Morden, Lieut.-Col. W. Grant
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Hickrman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Stanton, Charles B.


Higham, Charles Frederick
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Nail, Major Joseph
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Neal, Arthur
Stevens, Marshall


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Stewart, Gershom


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Hood, Joseph
Newton, Major Harry Kottingham
Sturrock, J. Leng


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Sutherland, Sir William


Hopkins, John W. W.
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Sykes, Sir Charles (Huddersfield)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Taylor, J.


Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W.
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Parker, James
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Townley, Maximilian G.


Hurd, Percy A.
Pearce, Sir William
Townshend, Sir Charles V. F.


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Vickers, Douglas


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Perring, William George
Waddington, R.


Jameson, J. Gordon
Philipps, Gen. Sir I. (Southampton)
Wallace, J


Johnstone, Joseph
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emll W.
Waring, Major Walter


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Poison, Sir Thomas
Weston, Colonel John W.


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Pratt, John William
White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Kerr-Smiley, Major Peter Kerr
Prescott, Major W. H.
Whitla, Sir William


Kidd, James
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Purchase, H. G.
Williams, Lt.-Col. Sir R. (Banbury)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Raeburn, Sir William H.
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Lane-Fox, G. R.
Ramsden, G. T.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Randles, Sir John S.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir M. (Bethnal Gn.)


Lindsay, William Arthur
Raper, A. Baldwin
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Lloyd, George Butler
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Wise, Frederick


Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor-(Barnstaple)
Woolcock, William James U.


Lonsdale, James Rolston
Reid, D. D.
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Lorden, John William
Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Lynn, R. J.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


M'Curdy, Rt. Hon. C. A.
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)
Younger, Sir George


Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Rodger, A. K.



M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McMicking, Major Gilbert
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hayward, Major Evan
Robertson, John


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Rose, Frank H.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Hirst, G. H.
Royce, William Stapleton


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Sexton, James


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Holmes, J. Stanley
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Cairns, John
Irving, Dan
Spencer, George A.


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Swan, J. E.


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O (Anglesey)


Davies, Alfred (Lane., Clitheroe)
Kenyon, Barnet
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Edwards, C (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawson, John J.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)
Lunn, William
Waterson, A. E.


Finney, Samuel
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Galbraith, Samuel
Morgan, Major D. Watts
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Gillis, William
Myers, Thomas
Wignall, James


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Grundy, T. W.
O'Grady, Captain James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemswortk)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wlgan)



Hartshorn, Vernon
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Frederick Hall.

LOCAL RATES.

Colonel BOWLES: I beg to move,
That a Select Committee of this House be appointed to inquire into the incidence of local rating by public authorities and to make a Report.
I make no apology for bringing this question to the notice of the House. For many years I have been interested in the work of local authorities. From the early days when the county councils were first elected we have always had this difficulty about the burdens that fall upon local rates. I think it was in 1896 that we had the appointment of a Royal Commission under Lord Balfour of Burleigh. That Commission inquired into the subject for a very long time, and issued two or three Reports. Therefore I feel that we have got a great deal of evidence already on this subject in these Reports and in the evidence which was given before the Commission, and also in the evidence given before a Departmental Committee appointed by the present Prime Minister, who was then Chanceller of the Exchequer, under the chairmanship, I think, of Sir John Kempe. As a result of the Report of that Commission, I believe in the Budget of 1914 certain measures were taken in order that local rates might be relieved by Exchequer grants but were dropped owing to war. There does exist in the country to-day a sort of grievance because the Commission presided over by Lord Balfour pointed out clearly that there were certain services which were national services as to which greater assistance should be given from the Exchequer and less money taken from local rates. From that time onwards local authorities have felt that they have been suffering hardship through not having these grants enlarged. The last Report of the Royal Commission says:
Complaint is made on behalf of the ratepayers that there is thrown on the rates too much of the cost of certain national services, and that those who have got no rateable property are placed in too favourable a position.
That brings us to the crux of the whole thing. For instance, a bachelor who makes money by financial arrangements and has not to keep up an expensive establishment contributes very little towards these national services. But there are cases even stronger than that. There is the case, which I had before me a short time ago, of a jeweller from another
country bringing over a large quantity of gems and jewelry from that other country and, by taking a room for a short time at a hotel, being able to compete against the large jewellers' shops in the West End which have to contribute so largely to our rates. I only mention that to show that there is a well-founded grievance and that the rates do press too heavily upon certain parts of the community. I would remind the House of what are the national services to which I refer. In the first place the Commission set out that asylums for pauper lunatics are a distinctly national service, as also registration expenses, police and criminal prosecutions, maintenance of public roads and county bridges, and diseases of animals. The last report I think was made in 1904.
Since that time this House has seen fit from time to time to place further burdens upon local rating authorities, and not only are there what I may call burdens that are enforced by legislation passed by this assembly, but this assembly has encouraged and incited local authorities to dip very heavily into the purse of the ratepayers. It was to meet that that the present Prime Minister, when Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1911, set up a Departmental Committee on local taxation, and that Committee reported that since the time of the Royal Commission the following expenses were placed upon the rates:—National Insurance for Tuberculosis Sanatoria, provision of meals for scholars, provision for medical inspection in schools, asylum officers superannuation, and the Police Weekly Rest Day Act. Each of those made fresh inroads on the rates of our country. Since 1911 we know that there have been a great many further demands upon our local authorities for things which have to come out of the rates. For instance, the building of cottages, the Mental Deficiency Act, and the Venereal Disease Act. The result is that the ratepayers of the country, not unjustly, have become alarmed. Thanks to a Committee which sat last Session, if any legislation now comes before this House notice has to be given and special action taken before the rates can be devoted to the purpose mentioned in the legislation. I may read from the Report of the Committee an important paragraph:
Your Committee feel that at the present time in the existing condition of national
finance more weight should be given to the protection of the ratepayer even at the risk of legislation being thereby checked and reduced. A few schemes for which the finance has been critically studied by Parliament would be of more value than a number of measures put forth with hastily formed ideas of the ultimate cost.
There is A measure which we are to consider shortly in which due recognition has been taken of the wish of the Committee, and the attention of the House is called to the burden that it will place upon the rates. Perhaps it is best that I should take an instance which is known to me better than any other. It is that of own own county of Middlesex, where for the last 32 years I have been closely connected with the finance of the county council. In 1900 the county had a surplus on what was then called the "Exchequer Allowances, Criminal Prosecutions and Main Roads," of £20,000. Now, owing to the increased deductions made by the Local Government Board for the charges of the Metropolitan Police Force, that sum has been entirely swept away, and in 1904 we had a deficit. There is no county I could give as a better example in support of the argument that the police should be paid for by the Imperial Exchequer rather than by local authorities. In our county we have practically no control over the police force. Unfortunately, I live in a suburb of this great city, and I know that if there is, say, a great fete in the precincts of the metropolis or there is likely to be a disturbance of the peace, innumerable men are drafted from our division and the outer suburbs are left in an almost unprotected state. That happens in days when there is a great deal of crime, especially in the way of housebreaking In 1904 we started with a very small deficit of £1,911. Year by year, with leaps and bounds, that deficit was increased. In 1918, over and above what we received by Exchequer grants, the deficit had reached no less a sum than £56,798. When the Royal Commission sat the grievance of the ratepayers was not as acute as it is to-day. It is not surprising that, with taxes that are almost unbearable, we sometimes feel, when our local rates demands come in, that they are more than the ordinary ratepayer can be called upon to pay. I know there are many in this House who are much
more conversant than I am with this question of rating, but when I was fortunate in the ballot I felt I could truly forward no motion of more importance. I am merely voicing the opinions of many ratepayers, to whom this is a burning question which they want to have investigated, not only by the rating authorities, but by the Government. I realise that it is rather hopeless for me to indicate exactly what line of action the Government should take. I understand the question is already receiving the attention of the Government. I hope the matter may be dealt with promptly.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARREN: I beg to second the Motion.
For two days the House has been engaged in a long discussion regarding the protection of the rights of certain sections of the community, and their advocates with eloquence and with force have been asserting their claims. As I have listened to them and thought of this Motion I have remembered the plight of the ordinary ratepayer who, unless the House is prepared to come in some reasonable way to his or her assistance, is in a most hopeless position. There is not an hon. Member of any political party or any one associated with any type of enterprise who is not cognizant that in the area he represents there is a great and growing feeling of reasonable revolt at having to bear a burden that is almost insuperable. In November of last year, upon the Second Reading of the Ministry of Health (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the then Leader of the House stated that the attention of the Government had been called to this question, and if it was the desire of the House a Select Committee would be appointed to inquire as to alterations in procedure with a view, if possible, of relieving the ratepayer. The Mover of the Motion has referred to part of the recommendations made by that Committee. If I know anything of the feelings outside it is that local authorities have a great burden placed upon them, and that they have no voice or control in respect of the greater portion of the expenditure they are called upon to incur.
I was examining some figures yesterday of a Metropolitan borough whose rate at the moment approximates 22s. 10d. in the £. I find that of that 22s. 10d. no less than 16s. 4d. is raised for matters over
which they have no voice and can exercise no authority whatever, and the local authorities throughout the country are beginning more and more to realise that after all local taxation can only be justified where there is local control, and that to be called upon to raise large sums for outside authorities and to bear the odium—for that is what they are smarting under—of raising huge sums in respect of matters that they cannot control, is a most unfair thing. They are the bodies who are anathematised by the ratepayers on account of the huge rates which they have to impose, and there is a growing feeling of resentment on the part of these local authorities. Hon. Members may have seen that the local authority of a Metropolitan borough not unknown to fame—Poplar—are taking or purporting to take a very drastic and unconstitutional action. They are saying to-day, "We propose only to make a rate in respect of that which is our own expenditure, namely, for the Borough Council and for the Board of Guardians." To-day there was an answer in this House to a question put by an hon. Member as to what action was likely to result from the withholding, for instance, of the Metropolitan Police rate. I am not going to justify the action of Poplar, because in my judgment it is an unconstitutional action, and if carried out throughout the country one which would reduce us to a system comparable to Bedlam, with chaos and confusion beyond all words, but, after all, it is symptomatic of what is in the minds of many who are having to deal with local affairs throughout the country. They strongly resent it and look to this House for some measure of relief.
Had the business of this House taken the course set down, there would have been a discussion yesterday on the Second Reading of the Public Health (Tuberculosis) Bill. The institutional treatment of tuberculosis is to pass from the National Health Insurance Commissioners to the local authorities of the country, and the portion of the contributions falling into that fund from the insured persons is to be paid over to local public health authorities, but Parliament realises that the sum passing is not sufficient, and in the White Paper presented to this House with the Bill they estimate the cost of additional services under the Bill at £40,000, of which £20,000 is to be met by the Exchequer
and £20,000 from the rates. Why from the rates? Surely if there is one matter that could be regarded as eminently national, as not being peculiar to any one area or any few areas, it is this question of the white plague, tuberculosis, yet the local authorities are to be expected to find one-half of the additional cost imposed by this transfer from the National Health Insurance Commission to the local authorities. A large number of intelligent persons in the country are resenting this system of doles that for the past 20 or 30 years have been perpetrated by this House of Commons saying to local authorities, "Here is a measure of social reform which is eminently necessary; Parliament will find part of the money if you will find part." It has rather thrown dust in their eyes and lulled them to sleep, and they have not been so active because the promise has been held out that, after all, this is a measure of great importance and they will only have to bear half the cost. I want to say with great deliberation that, in my judgment, and, I believe, in the judgment of a large number, the time has come when the question of rates has got to be seriously considered and when some measure of protection has to be set up for the unfortunate ratepayers throughout the country. Therefore I am wholeheartedly in support of the Motion. I think this House would be wanting in its duty and in its proper regard for these unfortunate persons if it did not take every step in its power to make such inquiry as can bring about a reasonable alteration that will satisfy, at any rate, the individual ratepayer and the borough, urban district, and county councils, who have to impose these precepts, that everything reasonable was being done to place the burdens on the right shoulders.

Mr. MYERS: The Labour party will support the Motion before the House, but for perhaps quite different reasons from some of those that have already been advanced. There are many phases of this question of local rating which are exceedingly interesting, and I will call attention to just one or two and endeavour to present our point of view in relation thereto. The present method of assessment in respect of local rates we believe to be very largely antiquated and out of date. The method of levying rates on houses and similar properties operates
in the direction of levying the rate upon the rent of the property, with certain reductions of about 15 or 20 per cent, to balance the upkeep, insurance and depreciation of the properties concerned, but there are now so many properties available to which that principle cannot very well be applied that it is necessary that some change should be effected. It is also inequitable in other directions. Take a professional man—a medical man, solicitor, architect or a man of that kind. He occupies, perhaps, very small premises in a side street, and makes, let us say, £1,000 a year. An ordinary business man with a shop in an average thoroughfare, fairly commodious in extent, is rated upon the premises he occupies just the same as the professional man, but while each may be making £1,000 a year, the business man is mulcted in rates out of all proportion to what the professional man has to pay, and there is no equity in an arrangement of that character.
The one striking fact with which we are confronted when we realise the rise in rates during the last three or four years is the comparatively small increase that has taken place in the assessable value. We are informed that the local rates are likely to be raised in England and Wales during the coming year to practically double the amount they were in 1914—double, both in the total amount of rates likely to be raised, and double so far as the rates in the £l are concerned. But we are confronted with this fact, that the assessable value in 1913 was £211,000,000, and in 1920 £223,000,000, or an increase only of 5¾ per cent. Now many people who are complaining of high rates, particularly those who have heavily-rented premises, seem to me to be complaining to a very large extent unnecessarily, for the simple reason that if normal conditions had prevailed, the assessment would have increased very largely, and, while a lower rate in the £ would have been prevailing, that lower poundage would have been paid on a much higher assessment, and while a heavier rate in the £ is being paid at present, it is being paid upon a much lower assessment than would have been the case if the War had not taken place and normal conditions had prevailed. It
balances very largely the extra calls that are being made in existing circumstances.
9.0 P.M.
In respect of premises where we have been unable to assess upon the recognised principle of rent paid, another principle has been adopted, and when we are tackling a factory or business premises of that sort owned by the person who pays no rent, and who works the undertaking, we endeavour to find the assessable value of the property by taking round about the profits made per year. That seems to me to be altogether, under present conditions, an undesirable proceeding. There are Members in this House much better acquainted than I am with the means that are available for getting round the declaration of real profits, and the rates now levied upon many business premises have little or no relation to the profits that are being earned by the undertaking in question. That is an evidence that another system of rating assessment is necessary. We are at another disadvantage. There are many Government properties in the country that have no rates at all, and I find by the return which was published in 1915 that in that year properties amounting to £2,000,000 in rateable value paid no rates whatever, and while grants were made to local authorities in respect of some of those properties, it would be better, and we should understand exactly what we were entitled to, and what we were receiving, if those properties were rated on similar lines to other properties in the same area. It is common knowledge that in different parts of the country where Government properties are rated, they are rated upon an exceedingly low assessment, and are a burden upon the particular local authority in the area in which those properties are situated. Another anomaly comes in at this point, and that is the question of tramways and light railways. Many Members of this House will be acquainted with tramway undertakings in different parts of the country. If those undertakings receive their powers under the Light Railways Act, they make a contribution to the local district rate on a quarter of their assessment, but if they get their powers for constructing a tramway under the Tramways Act, they have to pay on the full amount of their assessment. I am myself acquainted with a tramway company running through a particular
district, the same men working the trams, and the same trams being utilised, and in one part of the district it is a light railway and in another part of the district it is a tramway, and they have two different rates on a different basis. If it is a tramway it is a tramway, and they ought not to be able to relieve themselves of the obligation to the locality because they are able to secure their powers under what is understood as a light railway. All along the line the community is being robbed of what is its just due in this connection.
Then there is the question of railways, canals, and the like, which, under the Public Health Act, have to make a contribution to the district rate on one-fourth of their assessable value, and the poor rate on one-half. So far as railways are concerned, whatever justification there may have been 50 years ago for introducing a principle of that sort, the day has long gone by when it should prevail, and we are entitled to ask that the railways should have to pay on their full assessable value to the local authorities through whose district the railway runs. I agree that this is one of the things that is bound to be amended. It is exceedingly difficult to assess railways piecemeal, and it would be better if there were a national assessment on the railways of the country, and the payment of one lump sum, and then the receipts be apportioned to the respective local authorities in the country. At the same time, I suggest their rates ought to be levied on their full assessments and paid at that rate. We have come up against another difficulty of assessment in respect of these new houses that are being erected, and I think the time has come when we are entitled to ask the Minister of Health to introduce a settled principle of assessment in this direction. Under some of the new housing schemes houses are being assessed on the same basis as houses in the same locality giving similar accommodation that were erected in pre-War days. There are other authorities assessing their houses on the rental that is being received at the present time—a rental out of all proportion to the value of the houses when compared with other houses in the neighbourhood. Some settled principle of assessment in these directions ought to be instituted. One
great evil in connection with our rating system is the fact that there are too many calls and two many rates. We have a poor rate, a district rate, a county rate, in some areas, an education rate, and all the rest of it. There ought to be some measure of uniformity to secure one rate and one call for the local rates; some uniform plan and system.
The question of national services has been referred to. It is common knowledge to all the local authorities in this country that what are now really national services are being put on to the local rates to a far greater extent than should be the case. I have here by me the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation which sat in 1901. I have the Departmental Committee's Report for 1914. The Royal Commission in 1901 specified as national services poor relief, police, education, and main roads. While they hesitated to make any recommendation as to whether these ought to come upon the National Exchequer, their declaration was undoubtedly in that direction. While something has been done during the past twenty years for a larger contribution towards these services from the National Exchequer there is yet considerable leeway to be made up in this direction for the benefit of local authorities.
Not only in respect of the services that have been named is what I have said the case, but in every Act of Parliament which comes by way of the Ministry of Health and those Departments which deal with local government matters more and more calls are being made on the local authorities of the country. I will give just a fact or two to indicate the neglect of the National Exchequer to keep pace with these demands. In 1914 the average rate paid per head of the population in England and Wales was £1 18s. 11d.; in 1919 it was £2 5s. 1d.—an increase in the five years of 6s. 2d. per head. In that same period Government grants were: in 1914, an average per head of the population of 12s. 4d.; and in 1919, 15s. 1d., or an increase of 2s. 9d. The rates increased 6s. 2d. per head and Government grants 2s. 9d. only per head of the population. That proves, I think, quite clearly, that these national obligations imposed upon local authorities were not met to the extent they ought to have been met by contributions from the National Exchequer. This can be shown
with equal force under another head. In 1914 the total rates raised in England and Wales were £148,000,000; in 1919, £194,000,000, an increase in the five years of £46,000,000. In 1914 Government grants amounted to £22,000,000, and in 1919 to £28,000,000, an increase of £6,000,000. So far as I know, replying to my hon. Friend beside me, the reports include all Government grants to local authorities. I want to suggest that the £46,000,000 increase in rates and contrasted increase in Government grants indicate that much leeway has to be made up, and the local authorities continue to urge that the increased responsibilities which are being put upon them should be accompanied by extra financial backing.
This is not by any means the most important part of this question of rating. If we set the local authorities against the national exchequer, after all, it all comes out of the same pocket. It is not so much a question of playing off the local authorities against the national exchequer as endeavouring to find new sources of revenue. I have gone through these two reports and many points of view are expressed, and many opinions are discussed in this direction. I would suggest that at the present time local rates have nearly reached breaking point in so far as they are imposed upon houses and similar property. Even if they have not yet reached breaking point the principle has been carried as far as either necessary or desirable. When we look for alternative sources of revenue for the benefit of local authorities we touch upon very controversial ground. We have need to venture even if we do encroach into the realms of controversy and difference of opinion. I am one of those who hold the view that one of the sources of revenue that we have got to tap is the taxation of land values. The whole value that accrues from land—I do not want to enter upon any discussion of this matter—at any time and in any place is due to its proximity to the public services. If there are no public services such as water, trams, gas, schools, and the rest of it, land is of no value. It increases in its value just in proportion as the public services are brought to bear upon it. Any value that accrues from these public services being applied ought to
come back to the community to help to develop and further to continue these public services.
Such a principle as that ought to be recognised. We understood the Manchester Corporation were likely to promote an Act of Parliament, introducing this principle, and applying it to their own city. We should possibly have heard much more about it if that had been done. In any case, it would give us a new and an additional fund and a source of local revenue; and the new system could be inaugurated to provide financial assistance to those local authorities so much in need. In addition, if this system were inaugurated and new sources of revenue provided, we could move in the direction of relieving local authorities of some of the burdens of the present time.
One great burden on the local authorities—one likely to be a great burden, in my judgment, in the future under the present system—is that of the interest which local authorities have to pay on the loans they require. In March, 1914, the outstanding debt of the local authorities in England and Wales was £570,000,000. The whole of the rates raised in England and Wales that year was £71,000,000. Out of this latter figure just under £20,000,000 had to be paid in interest on loans held at a rate of interest approximately round about 3 per cent. Even that 3 per cent. absorbed £1 out of every 70s. raised in rates. The outstanding debt of local authorities to-day is something like £550,000,000. The total rates raised, according to the returns furnished to us a week or two ago, ending with the period 31st March of the present year, was £103,000,000—an increase of about 33 per cent. over 1914. The rates to be raised in the forthcoming year are expected to be about £149,000,000, or an increase of 109 per cent. I ask any hon. Member, what can he find in these days which has not increased 109 per cent.? The point is, how much of that is now having to be paid in interest on loans. If we assume the public debt of this country, so far as local authorities are concerned, has been transferred from a 3 per cent. debt to a 6 per cent. debt during the last six years, the amount of interest now payable upon our outstanding debt cannot be less than from between £30,000,000 to £35,000,000.
We have at the present time the large local authorities advertising for money, and they are willing to borrow on twenty years' terms and pay 6 and 6½ per cent. for the money they so borrow. In some instances we understand that 7 per cent. is being paid at the present time. Speaking as one with some little municipal experience and looking forward to prospective municipal development, frankly I say that I do not see that municipal development which there ought to be if local authorities are to finance municipal undertakings at 6 or 7 per cent., let alone carry the burden of interest on the great municipal debt at the present time. We are paying more to-day in interest than the whole cost of the public health services of the country. If we could reduce this great burden of interest, then we could set the activities of our local authorities free and move in the direction of that new municipal development which we are entitled to expect.
One thing I do say is that if we are to reduce the great burden of local rates we shall have to consider the responsibility of the Government in this matter. The Public Loans Commissioners ought to take hold of this question, local authorities ought to be furnished with cheap money, and should even be given preferential treatment for the purpose of developing these public services. They should be cleared of the tremendous financial burden involved by the heavy interest to be paid at the present time, and the increased burden that will come with the further borrowings which are necessary on the lines I have indicated. All these difficulties compel the local authorities of the country to move on uneconomic lines and adopt artificial methods. The principle or policy of local authorities seeking rate relief from public under takings ought to be discouraged. It is not fair to charge one section of the community for the financial benefit of the rates of another section, and to devote the municipal profits of gas, water and electricity undertakings to the relief of the rates is unsound policy so far as municipal development is concerned and ought to be discouraged. The result of this is that local authorities are compelled to adopt artificial methods in order to reduce the rates of the districts, just in the same way as the Government has moved in the direction of selling £500,000,000 worth of war stores and
putting the money to the revenue in order to reduce taxation. This is like the ordinary working man selling his furniture in order to pay his rent.
Even the Government themselves have reached the point when they are endeavouring to impose upon local authorities for the purpose of reducing the rates, a very undesirable policy which in the long run will operate against both the local authorities and the community as a whole. The two circulars which have reached the local authorities from the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education, to my mind, are nothing less than a public scandal, and they move in the direction of national suicide. To attempt to economise upon education and public health for the purpose of keeping down the rates in my judgment borders on national imbecility, and no House of Commons ought to countenance or encourage the general principles which underlie those two circulars. If economies are required, and they are required, and can be effected, they cannot be achieved judiciously by economies in regard to public health services and the educational requirements of the country. Even when everything is said that can be said for the application of what is contained in those two circulars, the sum is insignificant that can be raised in proportion to the economies than can be effected in other directions where there is a greater amount of money and where greater sums might be secured.
I do not want to enter into the controversial aspect of that matter, although it directly affects the question of rating. In my judgment the general position is that to tackle our rating system we should look at our method of assessment and we should endeavour to have wider rating areas. We should reduce the number of separate calls which the people are called upon to meet, and we should relieve the burden of the financial strain upon local authorities and ask the Government to extend the system of grants in proportion to their calls upon local authorities. While these things are being done we should endeavour to find new sources of revenue on the lines I have indicated in order that local authorities may be enabled to meet their greater responsibilities in the future, which must be met if the social, intellectual, and health conditions of the people are going to be maintained.

Major GRAY: The question which has been raised by my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Bowles) is one of great magnitude and supreme importance. There can be no doubt whatever that the ratepayers throughout the country, whether in urban or rural districts, are bitterly complaining of the incidence of the local rates, not merely in regard to its amount but also in reference to its unequal distribution. There is a very widespread feeling that local burdens are not being equally distributed. The subject is so vast and so complex that it appears, to me to be profitless to attempt to follow the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) in an examination of the details, but I should like to supplement his list of possible and desirable reforms. With the reforms that he did sketch, generally, I agree, but there is one which he omitted, and that is to create a more intelligent and active interest on the part of the ratepayers themselves in the work of local government. When one tries to realise the large responsibilities, both social and financial, thrown upon local authorities, the lack of interest by the local ratepayer becomes absolutely appalling. It is useless for the local ratepayer to expect much sympathy from this House when he will not make the least effort himself when elections come about to see that fitting persons are returned to take part in the work of local government. I have a very strong impression that the ratepayer has a very large part of the remedy in his own hands if he would but recognise it. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for the Spen Valley descant on the expenditure of local authorities and the high rate which has been reached in certain areas—I may say particularly where Members of a certain party predominate—but I will not enter into that, it would be a very debatable question at the present time.
I have risen mainly for the purpose of indicating something of the magnitude of the question in very general terms, and of reminding the House that this subject has been before us for many and many a year. I recollect sitting up all one night, and I believe going through the Division Lobby some thirty-five times, in support of a Bill introduced by Mr. Chaplin, as he then was, the President of the Board of Agriculture, on the question of agricultural rates. Many of us were induced
to go through the lobby that night on the repeated assertion that the Government intended to deal with the whole question of local rates at a very early date. I think that is twenty odd years ago, and the early date has not yet arrived. We are still waiting for the Government to deal with this very great and difficult and important question of local rates, and I am afraid we shall have to wait for some years before it can be dealt with. Long before you touch the question of the actual incidence of rating, the question of assessment has to be settled. The principles of assessment ought to be determined for the whole country, and like principles should apply in like areas. I am afraid that when you come to deal with the question of assessment you will have to reform assessing bodies and to find, if you can, some greater perception of justice and wider knowledge of finance than is often possessed by assessing Committees in different parts of the country. As an illustration I may say that only a day or two ago I happened to be discussing the question of rates with the clerk of one of our great rural authorities. He told me that a farmer went before the Committee. The farmer said that times were hard; could his rates be reduced? They agreed to reduce his assessment by 15 per cent. The farmer, well satisfied, left the room, and a member of the Committee remarked that as times were hard for all of them he thought it would be very wise to reduce the assessment by 15 per cent, all round. To that they readily agreed, and all went away very well satisfied
Sé non è vero, ben trovato.
If that is anything of the attitude of the assessing authorities it is pretty clear that one must find an assessing authority of wider knowledge and keener perception of duty than exists, particularly in some rural portions of the country. The very foundation of the reform of rating is the reform of assessment. I believe that a Government some few years ago introduced a Bill to deal with this subject which came to grief, owing to its very complexity and to certain difficulties with regard to time. There it has been left, apparently.
There is the relation of the local rates to Imperial contributions. That is an old and vexed question. It is one which is painfully familiar, and which has done a very large amount of harm, because
there is some truth in the saying, although it is not entirely true, that that which is a national service should be a. national charge. That has misled a great many people and has led to a large amount of waste of energy. It would be true if the national services were entirely under national control, but it is a principle which cannot be applied as long as you have national services partly under local control. You may regard such services as, for example, asylums, poor law, and education as national services. Therefore, in a very large part, they would be a national charge. You must, if you are to justify local control, throw a considerable proportion on the local rates and under the responsibility of those exercising local control. The exact relationship of one to the other has always been a very difficult problem. There was no more painful illustration than that connected with popular education. The Education Act of 1918 did go some way towards removing that grievance. It has not, however, gone far enough. I almost fear to say this, if there be any representative of the Treasury here, but there are still rated areas which years ago we used to know as necessitous school board districts where the education rate is now of such a character as to be a serious hindrance to the progress of all education. For ten years I had the privilege of representing in this House one of those areas, where I believe they will be called upon this year to spend the produce of a 4s. rate on education alone before they become entitled to the supplementary grant which is paid to heavily rated districts. A burden of that kind becomes intolerable. One must bear in mind that in districts where rates of that kind prevail the class of property is such that you cannot impose on them a very heavy rate. They are very often the dormitories of large towns, and any reform of rating should bring about such an extension of area that rich and poor districts may be brought under one control and brought to contribute through the rates to the one local service. It is very unfair to have a great county borough like West Ham, with its poor population and very high rate, on the very outskirts of London. It contributes very largely to the welfare of London, but London pays no part of the burden in the shape of the local rates.
Even here we have not exhausted the problem before us. I am perfectly certain, apart altogether from the relation of the local rate to the Imperial Exchequer and the relation of the local rate to areas differently situated, poor and rich, and so forth, that you are brought up against the question of local government. I am afraid that the reform of the Poor Law is absolutely essential if you are to get a reform of local rating. There, again, is another question which is long overdue. The existence of a number of local authorities attempting to deal with the same phase of local life leads to extravagance, overlapping, and wasteful expenditure, and ought to be removed without delay. It is most unfortunate. On the London County Council, I was most familiar with it, where for some years I had the privilege of serving as Chairman, of the Local Government Committee. It seems to me a shame, and almost a scandal, that the poor law authorities should be running a school, for example, when there is a local education authority which ought to have the control of those children. You have two authorities levying a rate for different portions of the same service, maintaining staffs and, obviously, incurring large expenditure.
I said, on rising, it seems to be futile to attempt to go into the details of this very complex question at this moment, and I desired mainly to emphasise once more my opinion that this is a subject which ought to be dealt with comprehensively by the Government at no distant date. It is one of our most pressing troubles, and nothing would give greater satisfaction to the ratepayers throughout the country than the knowledge that this question will be grappled with at an early date by the Government. My hon. and gallant Friend suggested the establishment of a Select Committee. If there were any prospect of a Division I would go into the Lobby with him, but not because I realise that a Select Committee is the best method of dealing with this question. It is not; it is simply playing with it. We have had Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees, the materials are available, and the one Committee to deal with the question sits on the Front Treasury Bench. That is where it ought to be grappled with. They are the people who ought to take it in hand. But I do feel that even on this
Motion for a Select Committee it would be desirable to record a vote in its favour, as an expression of opinion that the whole question should be dealt with without further delay, although I think the Select Committee can do but little good. I am not voting for setting up one, I am voting for the principle that underlies the Resolution, and that is that this is a question upon which the ratepayers urgently seek the assistance of the House of Commons, led by the Government, and I do most earnestly hope that when this House is freed from the settlement of industrial warfare it may turn its attention to the material and financial prosperity of our people.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir A. Mond): It may perhaps afford some guidance and be of advantage to the House if, after the very interesting Debate we have had so far, I contribute a few words on behalf of the Government. The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last made a very valuable contribution to the Debate. He pointed out that the subject which we have been discussing to-night is so large and has so many aspects that it is very difficult to concentrate in any one speech in one evening all the different points which require consideration, and there are as well different problems that will necessitate legislation. The Motion which has been moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Bowles) deals more with the question of the increase of rates, but his speech dealt more with the allocation of rates between the Imperial and local Exchequers than with the questions that have to be dealt with at great length, the questions of valuation and assessment, which, of course, lie in some respects at the bottom of our difficulties. It may be of some importance for us for a. moment to glance at what is the actual position regarding the increase of rates, and then perhaps see what is the main cause of the present increase and the size and volume of it, because that might cause more attention to be given to the question of local taxation than even in the past. There has been a publication by my Department which dealt with this question in considerable detail, and as it is available in the shape of a Command Paper I do not propose to do more than to quote a few very salient figures out of it. The totals are in themselves sufficient.
Take the year 1913–14, and the financial year just ended. The total rates increased from £71,000,000 to £149,000,000. The rate in the pound increased from 6s. 8d. to 13s. 1d., and the rate per head of population rose from £1 18s. 11d. to £3 19s. 1d. When first looked at in cold blood these figures are apt to stagger one, but, of course, we have to consider the fact that the value of money has very much diminished, or, if you like to put it the other way, the value of commodities has very largely increased. Why I desire to emphasise that point is this. There seems to be an impression abroad, more perhaps outside the House than in it, that the real reason for the increase in the rates is to be found in the number of large and heavy burdens which have recently been imposed on local authorities by new legislation. That is really not the case. The real cause of the increase is of a much more normal and automatic character. We all find in our daily life that everything we have to buy costs A great deal more money. The local authorities, of course, are in exactly the same position. From the year 1919, wages and salaries paid by local authorities have increased from £6,407,000 to £11,119,000 in the financial year 1920–21, an increase of 73.6 per cent. Materials have increased from £2,400,000 to £4,800,000, an increase of 99.4 per cent. If anyone would like to get fuller details they will be found in Command Paper 1016 on this subject, and they will there see that the real reason of the increase is the very great rise in wages and material. Then of course much work was deferred during the War, when we suffered from the cessation of public undertakings. A number of these works have had to be re-started. There have been reduced profits on trade undertakings, new works have had to be begun, increased working balances have had to be found, and, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) truly pointed out, interest has risen.
The hon. Member made a suggestion which does not quite fit in with his usual acuteness in financial matters. He suggested that the Government in some mysterious way, or the Public Works Loan Commissioners, could find cheap money for public authorities. As far as I am able to judge, the public authorities to-day have, on the whole, quite as good credit as the Government, and I am afraid that nothing is to be gained from
that method of finance. I should like to point out in this connection, because so much is made of it outside the House, that the new work which has been imposed upon local authorities by health developments—in regard to tuberculosis, venereal disease, maternity, and child welfare—does not amount to more than a 2½d. rate through the country. I do not wish to, indicate that I feel that new services, even of small amounts, should lightly be thrust upon local authorities at the present time. I have only very recently had the honour of taking up this very difficult and responsible position, but I should like to take the first opportunity of stating to the House that it is my firm intention to endeavour to avoid all unnecessary expenditure in the very difficult financial conditions in which we now are. While, however, it is important not to incur unnecessary new expenditure, it is quite as important, and even more important, to see that we get full value for our old expenditure. The fact that you are spending money on a service is by no means necessarily evidence that the best result is being obtained. Some people may think that the spending of large sums of money on public services shows great zeal and activity, but that is by no means necessarily the case-; you can very often get even better results by careful administration, and seeing that the money is efficiently spent. I certainly intend to devote my attention very strictly to this side of my work. Only the other day I was asked in this House to introduce fresh legislation for the superannuation of local government officials, which, again, would throw an increased burden on the rates.

Major PRESCOTT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on that matter, if carried out, would not involve any charge on the rates?

Sir A. MOND: I have gone into that question, and am informed that that is not the case.

Major PRESCOTT: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Report of the Departmental Committee?

Sir A. MOND: I am informed by those who have read it that that will not be the result, and that it will be impossible
to carry through the proposals without an increased charge falling upon the rates.

Major PRESCOTT: The Report recommends a contributory scheme. If the right hon. Gentleman will make himself familiar with it, he will find that what I have stated is the fact, namely, that it will not involve any charge whatever upon the local rates.

Sir A. MOND: A contributory scheme means a contribution from the State, and, therefore, an extra charge upon the State, so that, although my hon. and gallant Friend's statement may be accurate as far as the rates are concerned, the Exchequer will have to pay a contribution. Really, the ratepayer and the taxpayer are often only themselves to blame if their rates and taxes go up, because proposals are continually being made and legislation is being passed which will have this result. It is no use asking that the stable door may be locked after the horse has gone. With regard to the question of the limitation of the relative areas and boundaries of the regions of local expense and national expense, that, as hon. Members know, has been established by endless discussion and inquiry for many years. Although that is important, and, undoubtedly, in many ways affords a possibility of relief in certain localities, if you regard the matter from the point of view of national income and national wealth you are not going to obtain really any national advantage by a mere transference of burden. It has been rather overlooked by some hon. Members who have spoken that, since the Report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Commission, steps have been taken to transfer to the Exchequer portions of certain charges which used to be borne entirely by the local rates. For instance, education, registration, and police have had larger amounts from the Exchequer than was formerly the case, and with regard to police, I should like to point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Colonel Bowles) that there has been a large increase in the Treasury contribution in the metropolitan area. In the year 1918–19 the amount falling on the rates for the Metropolitan police was £2,230,000, and the Treasury contribution was £1,400,000. In 1920–21 the amount falling on the rates was £3,300,000, while the Treasury contribution had been increased to £3,400,000. Therefore my hon.
and gallant Friend must agree that one of his grievances has been met to a very considerable extent.
A considerable move has been made in regard to the relative position of local and imperial taxation, and the Report of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Commission cannot now be taken as a standard. In the case of police and education, the State now bears a full half of the expense incurred by local authorities. In the case of roads, the increased duties upon motor vehicles proposed by the Finance Act of last year are to be applied to the maintenance of roads. As regards poor relief, of which some mention has been made, but which is too large a subject for me now to enter into, the Government have for some time been trying to amalgamate these services with those of the public health. I think that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has fallen into some error in the figures that he quoted in connection with the question of increase of rates and increased Exchequer contributions. In 1913–14 the amount of the subvention from the Exchequer to local rates was £22,500,000, while for the present financial year the Estimate is £70,000,000, or three times the amount of the subvention in 1913–14. The rates, however, have only doubled—they have gone up from £71,000,000 to £149,000,000. It is very important to take that into account at this juncture. I want the House very fully to bear that in mind. There are already very large increases in the contributions from the Exchequer towards local taxation. It would be too much to assume that we shall ever reach finality in this respect, but I think more attention ought to be given to the point made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last. In the case of expenditure which is controlled very largely by local authorities it becomes more and more dangerous to increase the grants from the Exchequer and to diminish the amount paid by the ratepayers. To transform local authorities into mere agents for spending other taxpayers' money throws on them a great temptation to incur popularity in their own areas at the expense of other people. I recently had a case of that kind brought to my attention in connection with Infant Welfare Centres. That temptation can only be safeguarded if the people of the locality know that any money that is
improperly or extravagantly expended is going to come very directly home to them. If local authorities are placed in this position of spending other people's money either they will tend to become practically independent units exercising their own authority, a most disastrous thing, I consider, for this country, because on good administration by local authorities depends so much, not merely economically, but in sound local government, or you will get an orgy of expenditure which will lead finally to a cutting down right and left of useful services and a great reaction.
10.0 P.M.
I should like to say a word on the subject of assessment and valuation. Of course these are two of the most difficult questions which have occupied the wit of men and lawyers since time immemorial. A lawyer, of course, is a superman. We all know how difficult that problem is. We can all point out endless absurdities in our present assessment system. The question of railways is an old and burning question. A whole number of similar cases can no doubt be easily produced. I could produce quite a large number myself from my own experience. Anyone who tries to make any improvement or alteration in this very inadequate system is usually met with a storm of criticism, hostility, and opposition, which discourages any further effort being made for another generation. I hope some progress will be made in the system of valuation and in the system of assessment. We all know it is overdue. The problem has been studied a great deal, and it is time something was done. But there is one salient fact which comes up in looking at these figures, and that is the lack of elasticity in the revenue-raising capacity of local authorities. There is no real comparison between the relative increases in the rates and in Imperial taxation, and yet our present system, particularly with the Rent Restriction Act, produces such a want of elasticity that you get figures of shillings in the pound in rates which of course are fantastic and absurd. Of course, they really do not mean so much for the simple reason that, your assessments having remained the same and your rates having increased, the amount in the nominal pound is very much higher than it would have been if reassessment had taken place or the Rent Restriction Act had not existed. There-
fore, the figure is not in that way so alarming as it appears. But there is no doubt to anyone who has thought over the question that new avenues of raising income for municipal purposes will have to be explored. It would take me too far to-night, even if I were prepared to do so, to go into the various suggestions which have been made. I will only say that they all require very careful consideration, and they will be very carefully considered.
There is one further aspect of this question which I do not think has been sufficiently dwelt upon. When your expenditure is very high and your income is very limited, there is a method of reducing your burden, and that is by saving money. We have all got to face the fact that we are very much poorer as a nation than we were before the War. We have to face that fact as a State, as local authorities and as private individuals, and the sooner we s face it the sooner we shall get to a better condition of things and not continue in a vicious circle. It is always difficult to say in what way we should save money, but I am certain that money can be saved if people make up their minds that it has to be done. I would strongly urge on the finance committees of local authorities not only seriously, but boldly to go into this question. I had many problems to deal with of a similar character a short time ago in my old Department, the Office of Works, when I was framing my last Estimates. We had to deal with questions like the standard of maintenance of buildings the question of construction and the type of construction of buildings. Although they may be informed by their technical officers that it is quite impossible not to do this and to do without that, if they insist they will be astonished to find how many things can be done without. It may be uneconomical to take certain steps now which if you had plenty of money it might yet be wise finance to do. It is a difficult question when you are dealing with repairs to buildings or roads or other things to resist the appeal that if you spend some money now you will save money in the long run, but the position may be that you have not got the money now and you may have more in the long run. From the point of view of finance it may be a better thing to spend more money when the country is more pros-
perous and can more easily bear heavier burdens than to spend it now. Also you may look forward to such a reduction in wages and commodities in time to come that what may seem an economical thing to do now may become a wasteful thing and may become more economical hereafter. After all I do not look gloomily to the future. I look upon ourselves as passing from the highest point of the curve to the lowest tip, and I am looking forward to a reduction in the cost of living, in wages and in material. I do not say you may hope to look forward to a decrease to pre-War figures, but certainly I think some decrease on the present high figures is to be expected. Therefore I have a word of encouragement to local authorities and ratepayers. They ought to keep this in mind because they never seemed to look forward to any decrease in cost. When that decrease takes place, as I hope it will, they will be able either to spend their money on other and more fruitful purposes or they will be able to decrease rates, whichever they wish to do. This, I think; will bring some comfort to the hon. Member for Spen Valley. I think also it is possible that the rate now being charged for money may diminish and that the burden of interest on the municipalities will go down.
I therefore wish to conclude on a note of hope. Good strict administration, the application of the best intelligences in localities to their own local affairs will do more in the long run for increased efficiency and lower rating than any juggling with local taxation. My hon. and gallant Friend asks in his Motion for a Select Committee. I would respectfully suggest that we have already had a large number of Committees, Royal Commissions, Departmental and other Commissions, and that it is time action should be taken by the Government. I would prefer myself to go more fully into the various aspects of this question. As hon. Members are aware, I have not yet had time to go fully into the matter, but a strong Cabinet Committee has been appointed by the Prime Minister which is going to take up the question with the purpose and the intention of being in a position by next Session to introduce some legislation. I think we should proceed more quickly on those lines than by appointing a Select Committee. Enough material has been gathered to enable legis-
lation to be passed to meet a very large number of these points, and I hope, in view of this statement of mine, my right hon. Friend will see his way not to press for the appointment of a Select Committee.

Mr. RAFFAN: I am sure the House desires to congratulate my right hon. Friend upon the first speech he has delivered since his accession to his present office. I desire to voice my own congratulations, and, as I think, the congratulations of the whole House. May I say to my right hon. Friend that while I have listened with pleasure to his speech, I hope he will allow me to ask him not to forget that the position which he now occupies is that of Minister of Health, and not President of the Local Government Board. I think it would indeed be unworthy of his distinguished career so far—if he will allow me to say so—if he forgets that that change was made because it was thought desirable that the Minister in charge of local government should more and more keep in mind, not merely these financial questions which are of great importance, but the great question of public health and how best to promote it. My right hon. Friend says quite truly that great as the increase in rates has been, it is not comparable with the increase of national expenditure. There are, however, two methods by which they may be compared, because the whole cost of war services has fallen on the National Exchequer. Might I remind my right hon. Friend that the Government of which he is such a distinguished member has increased the charges upon the taxpayers of this country for other matters altogether outside war services in a much greater degree than local authorities have increased the charges upon the rates. According to the figures he has given us, the increase in rates is just about double. If he will take off war charges, interest on sinking funds, pensions, and other such matters and then compare Government expenditure to-day with the Government expenditure of 1913–14, he will find the increase for national expenditure is very much higher than the increase in local expenditure. We all wish for efforts to secure economy, but we should never forget that the securing and promotion
of national health is the best and truest economy. If the result of the policy which has been indicated to-night be the discouragement of-expenditure resulting in increased public health, then it is a policy which is to be deplored. I am sure my right hon. Friend when he looks at the figures as to the rates in the pound paid by ratepayers will not forget to look also at what is infinitely more important, the death rate in our cities and more especially among little children. Mrs. H. B. Irving, a social worker with whose name my right hon. Friend is well acquainted, said in her somewhat dramatic way while the War was in progress—referring to the difference in the death rate among children born in overcrowded slum areas compared with those born in districts where their parents were fairly well to do and where they had fresh air and exercise—that it was more dangerous to be born a baby in Great Britain than to be a soldier facing the foe in France and Flanders. The preventable death rate amongst children under 5 years was greater when the havoc of war was at its height than was the death rate among our soldiers at the front. I hope my right hon. Friend in his zeal for economy will not forget that it is desirable that everything should be done which can be done to promote the health of the people, and more particularly to secure better conditions for the rising generation.
There is just one other fact in that connection I should like to bring to his notice. There is a great deal of complaint just now that discipline seems to have lost its hold on the rising generation and about the growth of hooliganism among young boys. I have seen it stated, and I think the right hon. Gentleman can get it verified, that wherever you have playing grounds for growing boys and girls hooliganism does not exist. Hooliganism exists in districts where the people are pressed together so closely that there is not room for playing-fields for the boys, and, of course, their high spirits have to have an outlet in some directions.
You cannot solve this problem by saying that you will stabilise the present rates and have no further expenditure. You cannot starve local expenditure upon services which are essential for the well-being of the rising generation. Just as you cannot do it with regard to public
health. You cannot do it with regard to education. The whole future of the country depends inevitably upon the provision that we are making for the generation that is coming after us in regard to health and the development of education. It has been well and truly said that the race marches forward on the feet of little children, and I urge my right hon. Friend not to forget these facts. What we need is not merely to exercise wise vigilance in regard to expenditure—in that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; he cannot condemn extravagance in any direction more strongly than I do—but that remedy is not in itself sufficient. What is needed is that we should face the whole question of our rating system; whether it is a wise, a sensible rating system, and whether we cannot put in its place something better. You cannot go on increasing the rates on the present system. The present system has obviously and utterly broken down and you are bound to find some new method of raising them.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Accrington (Major Gray) referred to a discussion which took place in this House many years ago when endeavours were made to deal with the question. I do not propose to go back as far as that. I should like to remind the House and my right hon. Friend of the position in which this question stood when the War broke out and the attitude which the Prime Minister took up in regard to this question immediately before the War broke out. As my right hon. Friend well knows, a Government Department was engaged investigating this matter in the autumn of 1913–14. The Prime Minister declared in this House in April, 1914, that we required to substitute for the present rating system a system by which instead of rates falling upon houses, buildings and improvements, they should fall upon land values in the great cities and towns. I hope that on the Cabinet Committee which is considering this matter the Prime Minister will be able to sit and to act as President. I should have great confidence if my right hon. Friend was a member of it also. I should like a little more definite assurance than we have had so far on this point. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that amongst the matters which the Cabinet Committee is considering is the
question of new sources of revenue? Is that one of the matters to be dealt with or is the Committee just peddling about outside the problem and merely thinking about a fresh method of improving valuation and letting the present system to continue as it is? Is the Prime Minister prepared to allow this Cabinet Committee to investigate the proposals which he made in this House and in the country in 1913–14? My right hon. Friend might give me an answer, yes or no.

Sir A. MOND: The Cabinet Committee has not yet begun its labours. The inquiries upon which its labours are based have not been completed, and it would be premature for me to give any answer to my hon. Friend, but I see no reason why the Cabinet Committee should not consider that method or any other method of raising new revenue.

Mr. RAFFAN: It is very important, if this discussion is to serve a useful purpose, that we should know where we are. May I ask why my right hon. Friend resists the proposal made by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Resolution? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Munro) has set up a similar Committee for Scotland. Is the Cabinet going to consider this question for England and Wales alone? Is it right that there should be a Committee to consider this for Scotland alone and not for England and Wales?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. Munro): May I interpose to say that the Committee which was first set up was interrupted in its proceedings by the War? It had completed its deliberations with regard to England and had presented its Report, but had not touched Scotland, and the justification of the Committee for Scotland is to complete the labours of the Committee which had reported in the case of England, but had made no investigation whatever with regard to Scotland.

Mr. RAFFAN: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but it seems to me that if you are to deal with such matters as the matters which the Prime Minister thought most important of all in 1913–14, this is a question of policy which must be considered by the Cabinet, and my right hon. Friend, in appointing this committee, has already indicated a complete change in the rating system of Scotland on the lines which I have sug-
gested. I submit that these are the lines on which we ought to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Mond) himself has pointed out that the present difficulty arises, not because expenditure has increased so enormously compared with expenditure in any other direction. Though the rate in the £ has increased very much, the expenditure of local authorities has not increased in anything like the same proportion as that of the Government on their services which have nothing to do with the War, and it has not increased very much more than the expenditure of private individuals, but of course if a rate jumps from 7s. 6d. to 15s. or, as in a district in which I have to pay, from 15s. to 27s. 6d., a system of that kind cannot possibly go on. What you want is a basis of valuation. The right hon. Gentleman in all his figures has not ventured to tell us the position with regard to valuation. Whether the valuation has increased or not the percentage has been kept down because of the Rent Restrictions Act and other things, but if you go to the source to which the Prime Minister said we should go in 1913£14, you will find that as the legitimate demands of the community increase so the value increases, because as the community grows and energy and enterprise develop in a community, so the community itself creates community value which expresses itself in land value. If the local authority were able to appropriate for the purposes of the community the value which the community itself has created your whole problem would be solved immediately.
This no new remedy. Wherever this system has been adopted the problem has been solved. In a great many of our British Colonies there has already been this transfer. In the great city of Sidney for some years past the whole of the rates with the exception of the water rate and the sewage rate, for special reasons, have been placed on land values and every need of the city has been met by a rate of 4¼d. in the £ on the capital value of the land. What has been done there can be done in London, Manchester, and Glasgow, and what I hope that the Cabinet Committee will carefully consider is that all these great cities have again and again asked for this power. Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Belfast and Dublin, all the great municipalities, have asked for this power. Last year Cardiff, Glasgow and Man-
chester Corporations passed resolutions in favour of powers for the taxation of land values. There would be this advantage in the appointment of a Select Committee—that we would have the opportunity of bringing forward evidence and seeing that it was tested. In view of-the fact that this Debate was to take place, I think we might have had a more definite assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that this matter would be carefully considered by the Cabinet. I agree that the method suggested for considering the question would be more expeditious. The time has gone by when any mere tinkering with the problem will avail. I hope the Cabinet Committee will consider the problem from the point of view of the experience of our great colonies and will bring into assessment in all our great cities the land values created by the communities, and thus give us a new and efficient system of rating which will enable improvements to be carried out and the health of the people to be safeguarded in a way that is not now possible.

Mr. LYNN: I quite agree with the last speaker, at any rate in congratulating the Minister of Health on his appointment. As to at least three-quarters of my right hon. Friend's speech I was reminded of the old French saying that he who excuses accuses. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be anxious to point out that the Government did not impose extraordinary burdens on the local ratepayers I am not charging the right hon. Gentleman with any particular sin in the matter, whatever I may think of his predecessor; but this House and the Government have been responsible for placing unnecessary burdens on local authorities. Local authorities all over the country are protesting that these burdens are in connection with things which, if the authorities had been left to their own common sense, would not have been carried out. My right hon. Friend, instead of apologising for the fact that the Government had contributed £70,000,00 as against £22,000,000 within a certain period, should rather be appearing in a white sheet because of the fact that the Government had contributed so much. I think the Government has set a very bad example to local authorities. It has sinned in two ways. By Act of Parliament it has forced the local
authorities to spend more money than they ought to have spent, and it certainly has created a feeling throughout the country that is most unfortunate. I hope my right hon. Friend will try to correct that feeling as soon as possible. I was struck by the figures given by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers). According to those figures, if we take the interest upon the loans by local authorities, the amount at 6 per cent. is £33,600,000. I remember reading one of Mr. Gladstone's speeches in introducing a Budget in this House, and he said that if we ever reached the period in British history when the Budget of this country reached £100,000,000 the country would be in a state of bankruptcy. With all his genius, of course, he did not perceive the capabilities of financial expansion of the country, but I do say—and I think most Members will agree with me—that we have gone too far with regard to taxation; not only taxation as carried by this House, which is a serious matter, but local taxation, which is much more serious still. When my hon. Friend opposite was speaking I felt sure that, like the case of Mr. Dick and King Charles' head, we should hear from him that the remedy for this grievance was the taxation of land values. That question was thoroughly threshed out in 1909–10, and we have had a long experience of it in this country, and the result has been that the cost of collecting the tax has been something like £500,000 more that the entire tax itself.

Mr. RAFFAN: There was no real tax on land values in 1909–10.

Mr. LYNN: I am not going into the details. My hon. Friend had the Government then in the hollow of his hand, and it was he and his friends who had the whole thing at their disposal. They carried out the scheme, and the thing has had a very fair opportunity of being tested. It has proved an unmitigated failure, and I am sure that a shrewd business man like the Minister of Health will have nothing to do with any of these gimcrack things.

Mr. RAFFAN: It has not been a failure in the British Colonies, where it has really been tried.

Mr. LYNN: I do not know. I do not want to say anything with regard to the British Colonies. I am an Imperialist, and I have a great regard for Australia,
whose loyalty is equal to that of any part of the Empire, even of the home part of the Empire, but I have no desire to go to the Colonies or to that part of the British Dominions to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred for financial advice. As a matter of fact, Australia has done magnificently in the War, and is a great country. It has done many things of which every Britisher ought to feel proud, but in the matter of finance Australia is simply a child, and has not made the most of that great country itself, simply because its finance has been run by a handful of faddists. I hope Australia will grow up from being a child to being a man, and will pursue a manly policy, even in matters of finance, rather than dallying with fads.
There is one point I want to emphasise with regard to this question, and it is that the Government must refrain from putting burdens on local bodies that those local bodies do not want to bear. It is very easy for us here—40 of us, the rest not being in the House—to put an enormous tax on municipalities, but I do not think it is right. They are far too heavily burdened already. I agree with all that has been said with regard to the value of education and of health, but do not let us waste money. I think we are wasting a great deal of money, and we are throwing undue burdens on the unfortunate ratepayers. Let us remember that you may rob Peter to pay Paul, and, after all, in the end we have all got to pay. We are all citizens of this country, and if we go on spending money foolishly in one way or another we have got to pay for it, and therefore I was greatly pleased with the speech of the Minister of Health, which was one of the most refreshing speeches I have listened to for a long time past. I hope he will insist on getting 19s. 6d. at least for a pound, and that is more than the Government have been getting in the past.

Mr. J. JONES: I cannot say that I can congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the matter of his speech, although I may be able to congratulate him on the form of it. As far as some of us are concerned who represent constituencies in the London area, particularly in the working-class parts of the East End, I think we have a right to complain about the methods in which the Minister has dealt with this particular subject. There seems to be a desire to place the respon-
sibility for the very high rates—the necessarily high rates—that local authorities have to levy in these peculiarly situated districts, upon the men and the women who administer the affairs of those districts, and I venture to suggest that the slightest experience on the part of any Member of this House as to the problems of administration in these great working-class areas would convince him that such an attempt ought not to be made. People talk about rates from the standpoint of the number of shillings in the £ that the people in the localities have to levy. I will only take one comparison, and that comparison will justify my general case. West Ham is a poor area with a population of about 300,000 people. A penny rate there realises the sum of £5,000. Westminster is a rich district with a population almost similar. A 1d. rate in Westminster realises £32,000. We in West Ham, therefore, have to levy a rate of about 6½d. for the purpose of raising as much money as Westminster can raise by a penny rate. Yet Westminster is administered by people who call themselves economists, and are opposed to extravagance, and we are supposed to be squander-maniacs. As a matter of fact, they spend about twice as much money in administering public affairs as we do, so that economy does not consist in having a small rate. What it does consist of is getting the best possible value for the money you have to spend, and in that comparison we in the poorer districts of London are prepared to stand the test of criticism.
Might I point out also that our responsibilities are increasing, while the other people's responsibilities are decreasing, through circumstances over which we have no control. Our child population keeps on increasing year by year, and, owing to the exigencies of the growth of London, the population tends to increase on the other side in two directions. We have more children and increasing Poor Law responsibility. Our poor people are increasing, and, as a consequence, our Poor Law guardians are at their wits' end to find means to carry out their responsibility. This year our rates for Poor Law purposes have gone up to 8d. in the £. We cannot help ourselves. The Minister of Health instructs us that we have to meet the local situation through, unemployment and other circumstances,
while, at the same time, the rich areas in London are able to get rid of their responsibilities by selling off the institutions for which they have no inmates available and we in the poor districts have to buy buildings to accommodate the overflow of our institutions. Therefore, I suggest that, instead of being lectured in the way we are by people who know little about it, we ought to be commiserated with because of the unfortunate position in which we find ourselves. We get no assistance at all in this great responsibility, and what are we to do? Are we to leave the thousands of men and women no longer qualified to receive unemployment pay to starve? Our workhouses and infirmaries are overcrowded, and are we to say to these people that we can do nothing for them? We have got to relieve them, and I say poor have to keep the poor. We are asking for the incidence of taxation to be taken into consideration from the local point of view, so that we may be given that opportunity of doing our work in the most effective and economic manner possible.
It is said that it does not matter out of which pocket the money comes—but it does. For if the system was altered the richer districts would have a fairer share of the responsibility than to-day and that would enable the poorer districts to do better and be more equitable to them; and they would be the better able to deal with such questions as, for instance, to-day the unemployed problem. We get a certain amount of assistance in the matter of arterial roads. But when we asked for further assistance we were told that arterial roads are main roads leading out into the highways of the country. Some of us represent dock divisions of this great city and we find that the roads leading to China, Africa, and other places lead only to the docks, and are not arterial, while roads that lead to Romford Market are. Thus we have to shoulder in our localities responsibilities in this matter which we ought not to shoulder, and we should like in this matter to help the unemployed more, for we would wish them to give value for the money that we expend upon them. We are, I say, face to face with these great responsibilities. I do not care how it is done but we want these matters gone into. We want to see taxation, either local or national, based
upon the capacity of the people to pay. Take the matter of the police so far as control is concerned. In London we have no control over the police rate. It is levied upon us and we are not allowed even to ask questions about it. That rate has gone up proportionately more than any of our local services compared to the services rendered. Poplar, we are told, has refused to levy the rate for the next period—for any service that is not under its control.

Mr. SHORTT: They have levied the rate, but have not paid the money over to the authorities.

Mr. J. JONES: Well, that may be, but I understand that they are not going to levy the next rate at all, However that may be, it shows that one place in London, Poplar, revolts against the present system. In consequence of all this, we are asking that a new method should be adopted, I am speaking to the Resolution not because I think any further inquiry is necessary, but in order to discover if something can be done to bring about an alteration.
A Cabinet Committee, we are told by the right hon. Gentleman, has been appointed. If that Cabinet Committee is going to do what is reported in some quarters—merely to prevent public bodies spending money, or limiting expenditure on public services—then, in so far as we are concerned, it will afford no solution to the problem; but if the Committee is going to inquire into the whole system of local taxation, and subsequently to adopt methods whereby local authorities will be placed on a similar footing and an equal basis in the matter of raising and spending money, then we shall welcome the work of that Committee. If, however, it is simply to curb democratic bodies—we are told that working people cannot govern—they were not born that way — to curb their activities, then so far as we in West Ham are concerned we are not going to prevent our children getting the best possible education we can give them. If any attempt is made to cut down the expenditure on education then you will have to face the music. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government have no responsibility in this matter in regard to the increased expenditure. Who is responsible for the Burnham Report dealing with the increase of the
teachers' salaries? We did not object to paying those salaries, but the Government cannot say that they are not responsible. We have paid out on the scale of the Burnham Report and where are we this year? We find that we are getting £20,000 less in regard to our grant because we have carried out the recommendations of a Committee appointed by this House, and that represents in my district a 4d. rate in regard to which we do not know that we are going to get any further assistance. Because we have done what the Government told us to do we have been penalised to the extent of a 4d. rate. This is the kind of thing that is getting up the noses of our local administrators. The people who have told us. that we are not business-like now turn round and tell us after we have done what they told us to do that we are to be punished in this way. If the Government place this responsibility upon us then they ought to meet us. We object to being taxed in this way while other districts get off much more lightly. That is not fair and that is the reason why I shall support this Resolution if it is pressed to a Division.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Speaking as a member of one of those numerous local authorities which have suffered very severely from the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, I listened to the speech of the Minister of Health to-night with unmitigated delight, because I now see some possibility that my own district may escape that bankruptcy which was so imminent a few weeks ago. The right hon. Gentleman has announced that in the future local authorities are not to be pressed to any of those gross extravagances or crazy socialistic schemes. In the case of my own local authority the majority of the members regard themselves as the trustees of the people in their district, and therefore, taking their public lives, as it were, in their hands, they took upon themselves to defy the demands of the Ministry of Health that they should that they should plunge their district into a scheme of building houses at an expenditure of probably three or four times what will be the cost in another twelve months, or even sooner. We took that risk, possibly, anticipating some such change in the government of this country as has so fortunately come about in the last few
days. I would ask the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to one particular matter where I hope we may have his sympathy, not only in regard to the custom that has grown up in his Department of throwing upon local authorities expenditure which is completely unjustified, but that he will not throw upon us the necessity of allowing speculative builders to erect buildings in our area which will eventually become a great expense to the local authority. We have lately had a case in which, despite every effort of the local authority, permanent buildings, unsuitable for human habitation, will be erected. The right hon. Gentleman's Department has overriden all our protests and allowed the erection of a building which will cause detriment to the health of the people and involve us in expenditure in the future. I appeal to him to have the speech he delivered to-night printed in pamphlet form and issued to every member of the staff of his Department, and in particular to those members of the Fabian Society who find there a haven of rest and sympathy which hitherto they have not found anywhere else.

Mr. KIDD: There never was a time when it was more desirable that every occupier of a house should be his own proprietor. One of the obstacles that lies in his way of realising this ambition is the high rates. We got rid of one obstacle, and I was surprised to hear its reintroduction advocated to-night. I was a member of the Select Committee along with the hon. Member who to-night favours land values. I was rather surprised to hear him advocate the reintroduction of that particular form of tax. If the Cabinet Committee has to reconsider it at all, their labours should be very short. They have only to refer to the expert evidence offered by the officials who had that taxation under their charge to realise what an enormous imposture the whole system was. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Silvertown, it seems to me that his speech gives a hint of a possible and desirable reform in our local rating system. All these rates are related to heritage. If any man to-day asks himself why local rates are related to heritage only, I question if he could give himself a satis-
factory answer. He would trot out the old heresy that it was because of the services rendered. That may have been the beginning of the idea of levying rates on heritage, but it had its origin in the time when land was the only substantial form of property. As property began to develop there came the increased imposition of rates on heritage, which, it was claimed, received the local service. I think the Cabinet will do well to take into account some complete revolution with regard to this basis of rating. Why should not the local rate be directly related to the man's ability to pay, as in the case of Imperial taxation? Take the Education rate. A man occupies a house. He has no children, or it may be his children are over school age. Why should that man, whether owner or tenant, be called upon alone to pay the Education rate? I say all local services, whether for education or anything else, should be related to the individual or person, and in this way the young man with an ample margin beyond personal expenditure would be called upon to bear his proportion of the Education rate, just as a married man would be called upon to pay his share. I think, if local rating as well as Imperial expenditure is made to bear some proportion to the man's ability to pay, we shall have discovered an equitable basis for local rating. I think that even bachelors, who think patriotically, will agree with me that all our services to day are services, not to property, but to the individual, whether they be health, police, education, water, or anything else, and the old heresy that heritage alone should bear the burden of rates is based upon a misconception as to the part which heritage now plays in the realm of wealth. That old heresy should be abandoned and a new system started on the lines I have indicated.

Captain ELLIOT: I wish to urge the Minister of Health to beware of the flattering remarks of the hon. Member for Mossley, who is one of the most dangerous counsellors that he or any other Minister could listen to. This Tarzan of the Apes leaps on to the floor of the House giving out the cry of the bull ape, and declares that the Audenshaw District Council is the source of all wisdom, and he is a member of it. He also claims credit for the District Council for not having built houses, because he, in his paternal generosity, took
on the building of them, and subsidised them out of his own pocket, instead of the burden falling on the public rates. He also suggested that there is a similar man in every district council in the Kingdom, prepared to perform the same public duty; but that is one of the most dangerous delusions for any Minister to believe in. No doubt in the business world there may be such people, but surely, in the experience of the Minister of Health, these people will be found to be as rare as they are to be desired. When the hon. Member for Mossley speaks of the crazy schemes of the late Minister of Health, I think it worth while to put it on record that in the realm

Orders of the Day — POLICE PENSIONS [RATES AND CONDITIONS].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That it is expedient to make provision for the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of any aums payable to the Commissioner and Assistant-Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis, and to His

of vital statistics of this country there has never before been such an improvement as took place during the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman, who is entitled to the credit of that great achievement. Therefore I thought it desirable to make this protest on the Floor of the House and to pay this tribute of credit to a man who has done so much for the health of the country.

Question put, "That a Select Committee of this House be appointed to inquire into the incidence of local rating by public authorities and to make a Report."

The House divided: Ayes, 48; Noes, 49.

Division No. 62.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Robertson, John


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hartshorn, Vernon
Sexton, James


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnstone, Joseph
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)
Swan, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Sllvertown)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lort-Williams, J.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)
Lunn, William
Waddington, R.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lyle, C. E. Leonard
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Entwlstle, Major C. F.
Mallalieu, F. W.
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Finney, Samuel
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Wilson, James (Dudley)


France, Gerald Ashburner
Myers, Thomas
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Gillis, William
Nail, Major Joseph
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. (Exeter)



Gretton, Colonel John
Raffan, Peter Wilson
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Hayday and Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy.




NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Barnston, Major Harry
Jameson, J. Gordon
Sturrock, J. Leng


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Jesson, C.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Casey, T. W.
Kidd, James
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Chadwick, Sir Robert
Lindsay, William Arthur
Weston, Colonel John W.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lynn, R. J.
Whitla, Sir William


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Flldes, Henry
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Wise, Frederick


Gould, James C.
Morris, Richard
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


Greig, Colonel James William
Neal, Arthur
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H (Norwich)


Hallwood, Augustine
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)



Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Parker, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Lord E. Talbot and Mr. McCurdy.

Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary, under any Act of the present Session, to consolidate and amend the Law respecting the retirement, pensions, allowances, and gratuities of members of police forces in Great Britain and their widows and children."—[Mr. Shortt.]

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am not taking any objection, but I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend, whom I congratulate on his first business, what the total sum of money is calculated to be.
I do not ask for exact figures, but I think that in all these cases we ought to be given some approximate of what the money is.

Mr. HAILWOOD: As to the provision made for widows of superannuated police officers, will they have any increases?

Mr. SHORTT: That, of course, will not arise under this Resolution at all. It does not touch that in any way whatever; it is a different part of the Bill. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), it is quite impossible to give any estimate, because at present, and so far as we can see in the future, there will be no expenditure of any sort or description.
It provides for a contingency which has not arisen and may never arise, but still has to be provided for under the Bill. It provides for the case where you want to make a man an inspector.
The inspector comes under the Civil Service scale of pensions, and it is in order that we may obtain a trained policeman as inspector and treat him fairly in regard to this matter that the proposal is made. It lay with the Treasury to put it right, but the matter does not arise at present. The same thing applies with regard to the Metropolitan Police, and the reason why no sum is named is because there is no immediate need to do so.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lord E. Talbot.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes after Eleven o'clock.